Low social status 'can damage immune system'

Re:Low social status 'can damage immune system' by cyrusshepard on Sunday November 27, 2016 @01:50AM (#13048078)

Logical fallacy. Social status ≠ genetics. Social status is unfortunately often determined by income, race, religion, and a host of other nonlogical designations.

In this experiment, social status was determined by "newness" to the group. Nothing to do with genetics.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Low social status 'can damage immune system' by aaron695 on Sunday November 27, 2016 @07:39AM (#13048856)

You can't just name a fallacy from the wiki 'List of Fallacies' and try and win an argument.

Social status in humans and other animals is a large part genetic. This is take as fact by many people. If you believe it's not you really need proof.

The original OP didn't need to provide proof as they took it as a given and was talking a different interesting premise.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Low social status 'can damage immune system' by wybiral on Sunday November 27, 2016 @02:26AM (#13048169)

But if social status has an impact on sexual selection or individual survival then it does have something to do with genetics. It's a selective pressure meaning that genetics will likely drift in that direction.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Low social status 'can damage immune system' by bunchofdweebs on Sunday November 27, 2016 @04:07AM (#13048405)

Social status is determined by social status of forebears, intelligence, physical attractiveness, good health.

These are all heritable. This is not a matter of (formal) logic (so stop throwing 'fallacy' around); it's genetics.

[ Parent | on HN ]