We evolved to think the way we do over millions of years. We should not just dismiss a pattern of thought as a flaw because we don't understand its usefulness. It might be a flaw - the world today is different in many ways from the world our thinking evolved for - but at the very least we have the burden to explain why this pattern evolved, and why it's harmful now.
Every organism alive now evolved over millions of years. What's so special about human thinking? Why not cat thinking, dog thinking, cow thinking, insect thinking?
Evolution isn't about truth. It's about survival and reproduction. Which often involves lying and deception. Sometimes even deceiving oneself.
[Edit: To clarify, I quoted the linked article not to criticize it but to criticize the point I was replying to, which I took to be a human-centric fallacy about evolution.]
You missed my point. I wasn't claiming that cows are as smart as humans. I was claiming that evolution has produced millions of species, only 1 of which is humans. So you can't just handwave "evolution" to validate human thinking.
Humans are likely smarter than all of the other animals, but that's a pretty low bar. The competition for "smartest Earth species" is fairly weak.
Yes, you did, because you seem to continue to think that I was arguing against the article, when in fact I was merely arguing against the comment by amadeuspagel that I replied to.
amadeuspagel was arguing against the article, claiming that these thought patterns shouldn't necessarily be considered "flaws", because they're the product of evolution. I dispute that, because non-human thinking, which we all consider to be inferior, is also a product of evolution. That's what I meant by handwaving. I do believe that humans are smarter, but I also believe that human thinking is very far from perfect, still heavily flawed. As are all products of evolution.
That section very clearly describes the idea of hero-worship, and focusing on individuals instead of larger patterns. There's a good chance the author meant person centric, and (given the last name) just speaks English as a second language and picked a slightly wrong wording.
I think you misunderstood my comment? I was criticizing the HN comment that I directly replied to, not the linked article. I was quoting the linked article to point out that the comment was falling for one of the fallacies listed in the article.
