Humans evolved to pay close attention to danger, but today that instinct is being overwhelmed by an endless supply of bad news from around the world. Researchers say the answer isn’t to stop following current events—it’s to build healthier habits around how, when, and where we get our news.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] thevoidzero@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Yeah, so you could easily say we evolved to, or our brains evolved to... And so on

[–] higgsboson@piefed.social 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

No, in fact that is still teleological.

[–] MohamedMoney@feddit.org 4 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Is it? I’d guess 'to evolve to do smth' doesn’t necessarily need to be teleological. IIRC the verb 'evolve' means the fittest getting randomly selected, no?

I think I understand where you’re coming from but I think it’s fundamentally different to 'being designed with a specific goal in mind'

[–] oce@jlai.lu 4 points 3 weeks ago

Evolved into or evolved with may reduce the implication of an intention.

Our brains evolved into structures capable of supporting complex language.
Our brains evolved with the capacity for complex language.

[–] higgsboson@piefed.social 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Don't mind me, I had a prof who was uptight about it. I am sure it would only matter for formal or technical writing, like a scientific paper.

[–] MohamedMoney@feddit.org 1 points 3 weeks ago

Oh I don’t mind. I just thought it an interesting question. I would like to know your prof’s reasoning for his insistence.

Because that would mean that 'evolve' can also be used teleologically, imho.

[–] stickyprimer@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

Since we’re all being pedantic about words here, we wouldn’t say our brains evolved to X because it’s our ancestors’ evolutionary precursor brains that evolved into ours.

I’d suggest we just back off the pedantry in general. The headline could have said “your brain isn’t suited to…” if they wanted to avoid the possible implication of a deity but I think we know what they were trying to say.

[–] sniggleboots@europe.pub 4 points 3 weeks ago

I just took issue with the very literal interpretation of the phrase "not designed for" and I couldn't hold my tongue

well, my fingers, I guess