Pinup Single Dec 8 2016 - Sarah

[ijuin 572]

It's only been the last dozen generations or so that it has been more common for humans to have health problems from excess calories than from insufficient calories, and Evolution only works that fast when a large proportion of people are dying from something in just a few generations (e.g. a pandemic). Our bodies just haven't adapted fast enough.

[Scotty 1,061]

6 hours ago, ijuin said:

It's only been the last dozen generations or so that it has been more common for humans to have health problems from excess calories than from insufficient calories, and Evolution only works that fast when a large proportion of people are dying from something in just a few generations (e.g. a pandemic). Our bodies just haven't adapted fast enough.

I'd say it's also partly due to the fact that pretty much all foods* nowadays contains various artificial sweeteners and preservatives and such that wasn't used 100-200 years ago.

*Unless you go organic, of course.

[Cpt. Obvious 73]

1 hour ago, Scotty said:

I'd say it's also partly due to the fact that pretty much all foods* nowadays contains various artificial sweeteners and preservatives and such that wasn't used 100-200 years ago.

*Unless you go organic, of course.

Problem is threefold... Sugars used to be hard to come by when we were  scavenging for our food so having it tickle the pleasure center of our brain was a good idea at the time. Now sugar is cheap and easy to come by, but the rewards system remains so we tend to like sweet food. And as the laws of economics dictate the producers will aim to satisfy the demand of the majority to maximize profit. Now just like with other drugs eating sugar will build up a tolerance making you crave more sugar for the same rush. So a lot of us are effectively sugar junkies...

I'm not certain that the source of sugar is all that important, be it high fructose corn syrup or cane sugar the effect is much the same. What's changed is the price, making sugar a cheap and cost effective additive.

I don't know if fat is as addictive as sugar, but I'd expect that there would be some effect.
 

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

12 hours ago, hkmaly said:

But brain can't run on fat, it needs sugar.

Not exactly.  The brain can run on ketones, which are a product of breaking down fat for energy.  Ketones can also show up in a person's urine if they are in diabetic ketoacidosis, which is a life-threatening condition, so for many years doctors automatically got very very worried if they saw ketones.  However, the evidence seems to be, so far, that having ketones from following a low-carb diet (thus not having enough sugar to burn and making use of fat for energy instead) doesn't seem to be harmful in itself as long as you drink enough fluids to keep your urine relatively dilute.  (Not offering medical advice here, you guys are the one species on the planet I'm not licensed to do that for.)  However, long-term success doesn't seem to be any higher rate for low-carb than for low-calorie or low-fat or any other variation.

12 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Running is good: "Hey, inner caveman: the animals got faster. You need to build more muscles so we can catch them."

Good up to a certain weight, anyway.  Too heavy, and it would strain your knees and hips more than is reasonable.  Swimming and water aerobics are both great exercise, you burn a little extra keeping warm in most pools, and there's a lot less stress on the joints.  I used to go to a pool that they sent cardiac patients to for rehab, and a lot of them would just start out walking from side of the pool to the other and back, until they got in a bit better shape.  Just tell your inner caveman you live on the shore and you're getting some yummy seafood.

12 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Push-up is a typical example of exercise with feedback: the more fat you have, the more you exercise when you do the same number of push-ups.

Again, above a certain point, push-ups and pull-ups aren't going to happen.  Picture strapping on a backpack filled with a hundred pounds of extra weight, and then doing your set of push-ups.  Only the very fit, long-term strength trainers would be able to do it.

12 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I don't think I will have problem with that. Unless the experts behind the most successful aerobic training game - Pokemon Go - got something even better for anaerobic

Dunno about better, but there is a site called Fitocracy that tries to immitate those addictive games on Facebook and such, by giving frequent rewards and having players compete against others in a similar range.  They have both aerobic and anaerobic exercises.

12 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Remember that anything which happens after the age of 50 is random. We did not evolve to survive beyond 50. If we would, we would have third teeth for example. And 50 might even be too optimistic ... woman get menopause when they do because so few survived that long (and that many pregnancies) it didn't matter.

There's evidence that the selective impact of helping the offspring of someone who shares fifty percent of your genes can be significant, evolutionarily.  In other words, there's good selective reasons for an infertile or older individual to help raise the offspring of their close relatives.  "Aunting" behavior is well-documented in a lot of species, and there are individuals in many species who outlive their own direct reproductive systems but stick around to help make sure the grandkids have every advantage they can supply.

So when grandma spoils you rotten, she's just trying to make sure her genes live on through you.  ;-)

[ijuin 572]

I like swimming as exercise for the aforementioned cooling factor--I overheat and sweat so easily normally that the overheating and sweating itself is my biggest disincentive to exercising.

[hkmaly 490]

17 hours ago, ijuin said:

It's only been the last dozen generations or so that it has been more common for humans to have health problems from excess calories than from insufficient calories, and Evolution only works that fast when a large proportion of people are dying from something in just a few generations (e.g. a pandemic). Our bodies just haven't adapted fast enough.

It's even worse: evolution ONLY works by dying. Any condition not important enough to change number of children who survive long enough to have children will NOT be changed by evolution. Except by chance of course ... but that's unlikely.

6 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Not exactly.  The brain can run on ketones, which are a product of breaking down fat for energy.

Hmmmm ... but it's not particularly enthusiastic about it, is it? Still, good information.

6 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Not offering medical advice here, you guys are the one species on the planet I'm not licensed to do that for.

You might be right but you shouldn't assume

6 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Quote

Running is good: "Hey, inner caveman: the animals got faster. You need to build more muscles so we can catch them."

Good up to a certain weight, anyway.  Too heavy, and it would strain your knees and hips more than is reasonable.  Swimming and water aerobics are both great exercise, you burn a little extra keeping warm in most pools, and there's a lot less stress on the joints.  I used to go to a pool that they sent cardiac patients to for rehab, and a lot of them would just start out walking from side of the pool to the other and back, until they got in a bit better shape.  Just tell your inner caveman you live on the shore and you're getting some yummy seafood.

I don't think caveman was able to catch a fish while swimming. Standing in swallow water, yes. But swimming was only for case tiger appeared on shore (possibly sabre-toothed one). Or, obviously, for the "more stuff to eat on the other island" case.

Still, the "lot of tigers" strategy might work.

6 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Quote

Push-up is a typical example of exercise with feedback: the more fat you have, the more you exercise when you do the same number of push-ups.

Again, above a certain point, push-ups and pull-ups aren't going to happen.  Picture strapping on a backpack filled with a hundred pounds of extra weight, and then doing your set of push-ups.  Only the very fit, long-term strength trainers would be able to do it.

If you do enough push-ups, you will never get that heavy

... yes, I don't think anyone is doing that many of them.

6 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Dunno about better, but there is a site called Fitocracy that tries to immitate those addictive games on Facebook and such, by giving frequent rewards and having players compete against others in a similar range.  They have both aerobic and anaerobic exercises.

I don't think it reached level of Ingress yet, and Ingress didn't had much success.

I gave bigger chances to Wii, but it didn't catch up much. But maybe some future gaming controller for PCs will get game popular enough?

6 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Quote

Remember that anything which happens after the age of 50 is random. We did not evolve to survive beyond 50. If we would, we would have third teeth for example. And 50 might even be too optimistic ... woman get menopause when they do because so few survived that long (and that many pregnancies) it didn't matter.

There's evidence that the selective impact of helping the offspring of someone who shares fifty percent of your genes can be significant, evolutionarily.  In other words, there's good selective reasons for an infertile or older individual to help raise the offspring of their close relatives.  "Aunting" behavior is well-documented in a lot of species, and there are individuals in many species who outlive their own direct reproductive systems but stick around to help make sure the grandkids have every advantage they can supply.

While true, it's apparently not effective enough.

6 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

So when grandma spoils you rotten, she's just trying to make sure her genes live on through you.  ;-)

With her constant questions about when I get some children, I don't think she's trying to hide it.

9 minutes ago, ijuin said:

I like swimming as exercise for the aforementioned cooling factor--I overheat and sweat so easily normally that the overheating and sweating itself is my biggest disincentive to exercising.

Sweating is not reason to not exercise. It's just reason to not do it in public. Overheating is worse I guess ...

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

On December 12, 2016 at 6:44 PM, hkmaly said:

It's even worse: evolution ONLY works by dying. Any condition not important enough to change number of children who survive long enough to have children will NOT be changed by evolution. Except by chance of course ... but that's unlikely.

Nope, evolution works by reproductive success.  If something you do helps you kids' children have more or more successful offspring, or your brother's children, or any other close relative, that is what counts.

On December 12, 2016 at 6:44 PM, hkmaly said:

I don't think caveman was able to catch a fish while swimming. Standing in swallow water, yes. But swimming was only for case tiger appeared on shore (possibly sabre-toothed one). Or, obviously, for the "more stuff to eat on the other island" case.

Seafood includes diving to grab yummy crabs, lobster, etc. too.  Diving is a very important skill in many seashore cultures.

On December 12, 2016 at 6:44 PM, hkmaly said:

Still, the "lot of tigers" strategy might work.

Not really, tigers are excellent swimmers.  ;-)

On December 12, 2016 at 6:44 PM, hkmaly said:

While true, it's apparently not effective enough.

You got a source for that?  Mine is my biology degree and all the lectures that led to it, as well as keeping up with the literature since then.

 

[hkmaly 490]

4 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

On 12/13/2016 at 1:44 AM, hkmaly said:

It's even worse: evolution ONLY works by dying. Any condition not important enough to change number of children who survive long enough to have children will NOT be changed by evolution. Except by chance of course ... but that's unlikely.

Nope, evolution works by reproductive success.  If something you do helps you kids' children have more or more successful offspring, or your brother's children, or any other close relative, that is what counts.

It's RELATIVE reproductive success. Which usually means someone is dying to make space for your children (or your brother children etc).

But I mentioned dying specially in context of "evolving out" negative stuff. Evolution will not cause people who have trait X to have children without trait X - well, few of them, possibly, but the majority will get rid of trait X simply because people with trait X will die with less offspring and eventually die out.

4 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Seafood includes diving to grab yummy crabs, lobster, etc. too.  Diving is a very important skill in many seashore cultures.

But diving is not exactly swimming in terms of muscle usage. In fact, diver might gain from having less muscles to lower oxygen consumption.

4 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Quote

Still, the "lot of tigers" strategy might work.

Not really, tigers are excellent swimmers.  ;-)

... hence you need to swim faster

... seriously? I though cats don't like water ... oh. I see. Cheetahs, leopards and lions avoid water, tigers are exception. Ok, make it "lot of lions" strategy.

4 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Quote

While true, it's apparently not effective enough.

You got a source for that?  Mine is my biology degree and all the lectures that led to it, as well as keeping up with the literature since then.

Four dead teeth.

Oh. Sorry. Might've lost context. With context, it's

"It's apparently not effective enough to evolve traits useful in higher age, like third teeth or better defense against age-related diseases".

 

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

23 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

It's RELATIVE reproductive success. Which usually means someone is dying to make space for your children (or your brother children etc).

Or just not having as many successful children.  To pick what's probably a far exaggerated ratio, if you have four, and they have two, and that ratio continues each generation, you'll wind up with a lot more descendants, even if the competition is succeeding at replacing themselves.  If one of your kids mates with one of theirs, maybe they'll have three successful kids, or maybe some sort of synergy between traits will lead to the combination having five or six.

23 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

But diving is not exactly swimming in terms of muscle usage. In fact, diver might gain from having less muscles to lower oxygen consumption.

Usually, you have to swim to where you find the food, dive to get it, and swim to where you left your bucket to put the food in, before swimming back to get more.

23 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

"It's apparently not effective enough to evolve traits useful in higher age, like third teeth or better defense against age-related diseases".

But we *have* evolved traits useful for elderly individuals.  We know how to make dentures and implants, how to slow progression of arthritis and treat its pain to keep people mobile far longer, how to build canes and walkers and braces and....

[hkmaly 490]

24 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

57 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

It's RELATIVE reproductive success. Which usually means someone is dying to make space for your children (or your brother children etc).

Or just not having as many successful children.  To pick what's probably a far exaggerated ratio, if you have four, and they have two, and that ratio continues each generation, you'll wind up with a lot more descendants, even if the competition is succeeding at replacing themselves.  If one of your kids mates with one of theirs, maybe they'll have three successful kids, or maybe some sort of synergy between traits will lead to the combination having five or six.

Where is that huge number of descendants going to go? America? There was lot of natives dying involved in that one. Alpha Centauri?

No matter if gene is dominant or recessive, statistically, if you have at least two children there is big chance both version of that gene will get to next generation.

24 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

Quote

But diving is not exactly swimming in terms of muscle usage. In fact, diver might gain from having less muscles to lower oxygen consumption.

Usually, you have to swim to where you find the food, dive to get it, and swim to where you left your bucket to put the food in, before swimming back to get more.

Oh. Right. Cavemen likely didn't had much of a boat ... I'm not that sure about the bucket actually. Basket, more likely.

24 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

Quote

"It's apparently not effective enough to evolve traits useful in higher age, like third teeth or better defense against age-related diseases".

But we *have* evolved traits useful for elderly individuals.  We know how to make dentures and implants, how to slow progression of arthritis and treat its pain to keep people mobile far longer, how to build canes and walkers and braces and....

That's TECHNOLOGY, not evolution. We didn't evolved it, we invented it. Just like we invented weapons capable of killing any predator (or anything else, except cockroaches).

Note that technology does NOT work on dying. Ideas can spread horizontally. In 9 months it takes to produce single genetic descendant you have plenty of time to spread new invention to whole population.

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

35 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

That's TECHNOLOGY, not evolution. We didn't evolve it, we invented it. Just like we invented weapons capable of killing any predator (or anything else, except cockroaches).

We evolved brains capable of inventing such things, and hands capable of creating them, or of creating tools that can create them.

35 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Note that technology does NOT work on dying. Ideas can spread horizontally. In 9 months it takes to produce single genetic descendant you have plenty of time to spread new invention to whole population.

But brains which aren't capable of using and creating new technologies are at a definite disadvantage, and thus less likely to pass on their genes.

[hkmaly 490]

3 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

That's TECHNOLOGY, not evolution. We didn't evolve it, we invented it. Just like we invented weapons capable of killing any predator (or anything else, except cockroaches).

We evolved brains capable of inventing such things, and hands capable of creating them, or of creating tools that can create them.

That's true, but not the same as evolving the stuff directly. In game terms, human brain is OP on border of cheating. It completely changes the rules. Actually, it completely changes the GAME - rules, objectives, map ...

3 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Quote

Note that technology does NOT work on dying. Ideas can spread horizontally. In 9 months it takes to produce single genetic descendant you have plenty of time to spread new invention to whole population.

But brains which aren't capable of using and creating new technologies are at a definite disadvantage, and thus less likely to pass on their genes.

If only.

It used to work that way, then it changed to work by communities, but now we have global world and everybody can take advantage of all technologies regardless if he can understand them. Couch potato can watch satellite programme (satellites wouldn't work without theory of relativity) on his plasma TV (which wouldn't work without quantum physic) and still believe God created word in 7 days and Grand Canyon was created in Great flood after 40 days of rain. Terrorist can use machine guns and explosives and still believe that there is only single book worth reading and all the rest should be burned. Man with brain capable of creating new technologies may be busy working in laboratory and his neighbour is meanwhile working on reproduction with his wife.

(Note: those are just examples. I'm sure you can find examples of human stupidity in any religion or non-religious ideology, if you look at extremists version of it. I also don't want to imply woman wouldn't be capable of inventing, it's just much harder to convince her she reproduced when she didn't. She can still be too busy to reproduce.)

[ijuin 572]

On 12/12/2016 at 4:44 PM, hkmaly said:

Sweating is not reason to not exercise. It's just reason to not do it in public. Overheating is worse I guess ...

Well, in my case it is of the "dripping onto everything and literally wringing the liquid out of my t-shirt several times per hour" level, which means also that I do not want to do it if I do not have immediate access to showers and change of clothes afterward.

5 hours ago, hkmaly said:

That's true, but not the same as evolving the stuff directly. In game terms, human brain is OP on border of cheating. It completely changes the rules. Actually, it completely changes the GAME - rules, objectives, map ...

If only.

It used to work that way, then it changed to work by communities, but now we have global world and everybody can take advantage of all technologies regardless if he can understand them.

Competition these days is humans competing against each other rather than humans competing against other species. Threats from large predators became trivial after the development of convenient portable firearms (17th century). Threats from vermin and disease became minor after the discovery of poisons that will kill them but not us (late 19th-early 20th century).

Also, the criteria for what makes successful interpersonal competition has changed. Because most modern forms of productivity (agriculture, manufacture, media, etc.) are either capital-intensive or require a combination of several specialties, almost nobody outside of small merchants and service technicians can operate a true solo business. This means that the ability to do the job efficiently now takes a back seat to the ability to placate potential employers--in other words, what matters is that the boss (or Human Resources Department, or whoever else decides hiring and firing) approves of you. This in turn leads to the advantage going to those who can put up the best facade of being valuable, whether there is substance behind the facade or not. Mr. A. can now gain the advantage by bullying or charming his co-workers into shouldering his workload as long as he can conceal this action from his supervisors. Thus, the ability to acquire praise (and other fruits) for work done by other people is the "killer app" skill in modern society. In DnD terms, Strength, Constitution, and even Dexterity are hardly important any more, and Charisma dominates everything.

[Vorlonagent 442]

8 hours ago, ijuin said:

Also, the criteria for what makes successful interpersonal competition has changed. Because most modern forms of productivity (agriculture, manufacture, media, etc.) are either capital-intensive or require a combination of several specialties, almost nobody outside of small merchants and service technicians can operate a true solo business.

E-sports!

[hkmaly 490]

13 hours ago, ijuin said:

On 12/13/2016 at 1:44 AM, hkmaly said:

Sweating is not reason to not exercise. It's just reason to not do it in public. Overheating is worse I guess ...

Well, in my case it is of the "dripping onto everything and literally wringing the liquid out of my t-shirt several times per hour" level, which means also that I do not want to do it if I do not have immediate access to showers and change of clothes afterward.

Well, I sort of meant "in public or without the way to shower and change clothes before going to public". Dripping is no problem if you take care that "everything" doesn't contain anything electronic and/or impossible to wash.

13 hours ago, ijuin said:

Competition these days is humans competing against each other rather than humans competing against other species. Threats from large predators became trivial after the development of convenient portable firearms (17th century).

I would challenge the effectiveness of 17th century firearm against elephant or hippo, but neither is predator ...

13 hours ago, ijuin said:

Threats from vermin and disease became minor after the discovery of poisons that will kill them but not us (late 19th-early 20th century).

You apparently don't count MRSA and several others which are resistant to most of mentioned "poisons".

But, even that is completely different game than we were playing before. It's not our evolution against evolution of diseases. It's our technology against evolution of diseases. Bacteria have ability of horizontal DNA transfer, which used to give them big advantage ... but horizontal DNA transfer is slow compared to technology's ability to develop a substance, send it's composition over Internet, synthesize it and deploy widely.

13 hours ago, ijuin said:

Also, the criteria for what makes successful interpersonal competition has changed. Because most modern forms of productivity (agriculture, manufacture, media, etc.) are either capital-intensive or require a combination of several specialties, almost nobody outside of small merchants and service technicians can operate a true solo business

And even the small merchants and service technicians are measured more by their "people" skill than their work itself.

13 hours ago, ijuin said:

This means that the ability to do the job efficiently now takes a back seat to the ability to placate potential employers--in other words, what matters is that the boss (or Human Resources Department, or whoever else decides hiring and firing) approves of you. This in turn leads to the advantage going to those who can put up the best facade of being valuable, whether there is substance behind the facade or not. Mr. A. can now gain the advantage by bullying or charming his co-workers into shouldering his workload as long as he can conceal this action from his supervisors. Thus, the ability to acquire praise (and other fruits) for work done by other people is the "killer app" skill in modern society. In DnD terms, Strength, Constitution, and even Dexterity are hardly important any more, and Charisma dominates everything.

Actually, there are still limits how much you can conceal lack in Strength, Constitution and Dexterity. Problem is, that there seem to be no such limits for concealing lack of Intelligence and Wisdom, as well as experience.

And that's speaking in terms of DnD. In real life, everything is not divided in only six basic attributes, meaning person can lack in even more areas and still successfully parasite on people actually having those attributes, skill and experience.

[ijuin 572]

True. My overall point was that the main determinant of individual success in modern society is one's ability to convince others to hand over a piece of their own resources/influence/support as opposed to the ability to generate such resources--in other words, redistributing the flow towards oneself is massively more successful than adding to the supply. Instead of directly creating wealth, the way to get ahead is by finding a way to talk everybody else into giving you theirs.

[hkmaly 490]

2 hours ago, ijuin said:

True. My overall point was that the main determinant of individual success in modern society is one's ability to convince others to hand over a piece of their own resources/influence/support as opposed to the ability to generate such resources--in other words, redistributing the flow towards oneself is massively more successful than adding to the supply. Instead of directly creating wealth, the way to get ahead is by finding a way to talk everybody else into giving you theirs.

Yes.

Which I personally don't consider good. Or sustainable.

In long term, it will mean that the ability of whole population to generate resources will diminish, and unless scarcity of resources reverts the trend (which is unlikely, people most thriving in such situations are usually the worst scum from the "talkers") the population will die.

[ijuin 572]

It's likely to last for as long as production requires the permission of absentee landlords (i.e. somebody who owns the factories or farms, even if it's the government). As long as placating an employer is necessary to gain access to the means of production, then the "successful" worker is the one best skilled at gaining the employer's favor. If we are not going to reverse the centralization of ownership in order to allow more direct access, then employers will have to start rewarding the high-producing worker above the butt-kissing worker.

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

This is another area that shows up in lots of other species.  "Cheaters" happen, be it stealing the hoard of nuts another chipmunk has accumulated, or mating outside of a supposedly monogamous mating.  There's a whole science examining what percent of "cheaters" a system can support without going too far and collapsing, and nature is very good at finding that level.  And it works even though the "decision" whether to "cheat" is made on an individual as well as genetic basis.

In other words, humans are hardly unique in this behavior, and it's really only a relatively small percentage of jerks stealing others' credit, or the system wouldn't be working so well.

[mlooney 3,417]

2 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Cheaters" happen, be it stealing the hoard of nuts another chipmunk has accumulated, or mating outside of a supposedly monogamous mating.

I saw a NatGeo short film about that.  The end of the film was shot as if it was a martial arts movie as the two chipmunks fought it out over the nuts being stolen.  Most epic thing ever filmed about chipmunks.

[hkmaly 490]

16 hours ago, ijuin said:

It's likely to last for as long as production requires the permission of absentee landlords (i.e. somebody who owns the factories or farms, even if it's the government). As long as placating an employer is necessary to gain access to the means of production, then the "successful" worker is the one best skilled at gaining the employer's favor.

Even without the "owner"/employer, if a job requires cooperation of multiple people of different specialization, person better at choosing the other specialization people can outperform another who is better at his job but worse at finding the group.

16 hours ago, ijuin said:

If we are not going to reverse the centralization of ownership in order to allow more direct access, then employers will have to start rewarding the high-producing worker above the butt-kissing worker.

That's hard to do if the criteria for high-producing worker are hard to evaluate. Either because noone is doing exactly same thing so you have no comparison or because it takes years to see measurable progress. (Often it's both AND there is luck involved.)

12 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

This is another area that shows up in lots of other species.  "Cheaters" happen, be it stealing the hoard of nuts another chipmunk has accumulated, or mating outside of a supposedly monogamous mating.  There's a whole science examining what percent of "cheaters" a system can support without going too far and collapsing, and nature is very good at finding that level.  And it works even though the "decision" whether to "cheat" is made on an individual as well as genetic basis.

Nature is good at finding that level IN LONG SCALE. And species dying out IS one of possible result of nature "finding" the balance.

12 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

In other words, humans are hardly unique in this behavior

True, however I'm not exactly sure how is this supposed to make me feel better.

12 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

and it's really only a relatively small percentage of jerks stealing others' credit, or the system wouldn't be working so well.

One jerk can steal LOT of credit.

(Although I shouldn't complain so much. The company I'm working for is not exactly producing anything, so while I'm working hard enough I'm likely part of the problem. Not that our competitors produce anything - whole field is useless. But hey, NASA wasn't hiring.)