The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"Anti-Scientific American:" Hunters = Gatherers
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Scientific American:

Do Women Want to Be Oppressed?

Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world

By John Horgan on December 29, 2017

Did women who marched on Washington on January 21, 2017, actually have an innate desire to be dominated by men?

In principle, evolutionary psychology, which seeks to understand our behavior in light of the fact that we are products of natural selection, can give us deep insights into ourselves. In practice, the field often reinforces insidious prejudices. That was the theme of my recent column “Darwin Was Sexist, and So Are Many Modern Scientists.”

The column provoked such intense pushback that I decided to write this follow-up post. Alt-right pundit Steve Sailer described my column as “science denialism.”

Horgan wrote in Scientific American:

By John Horgan on December 18, 2017

… Actually, Saini points out, anthropological research has revealed that hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian. Hence modern gender differences are more likely to stem from discrimination and other cultural factors than from females’ alleged biological inferiority.

I replied:

“… hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian …” Except for that whole hunter-gatherer part of the hunter-gatherer societies, but otherwise …

 
Hide 273 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Horgan’s comeback: Ethnographic reports that the men were hunters and the women gatherers were all written by men.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Horgan’s comeback: Ethnographic reports that the men were hunters and the women gatherers were all written by men.
     
    He's got a point, you know. Most of those ethnographic reports were written on the walls of caves and were not subject to the rigorous peer-review process, as is Mr. Horgan's work.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    Yes. Also, those writers were writing "outside their experience". We need some actual hunter-gatherer sensitivity readers to put in their 2 cents.
    , @Bill Jones
    Because they were the ones who could write. What a Sad Jerk-off Wanker (SJW) Horgan is.
    , @Neoconned
    As Whiskey or whoever it was put it...."women, they just want to be dominated...."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Good piece last year by Jerry Coyne: When ideology trumps biology

    If I was the late Andy Rooney, I’d say “You know what really bothers me? When science shows some facts about nature, and then someone rejects those facts because they’re inconvenient or uncomfortable for their ideology.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @lavoisier
    Good piece last year by Jerry Coyne: When ideology trumps biology:

    If I was the late Andy Rooney, I’d say “You know what really bothers me? When science shows some facts about nature, and then someone rejects those facts because they’re inconvenient or uncomfortable for their ideology.”
     
    Isn't that Jerry Coyne the same guy who criticized Watson for suggesting that African intelligence was a bit on the low side?

    What has happened to make him concerned now about ideology trumping science?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. But I fear that biological theorizing about these tendencies, in our still-sexist world, does more harm than good. It empowers the social injustice warriors, and that is the last thing our world needs.

    How does one even write such stuff? Is he trying to sabotage his own side?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "But I fear that biological theorizing about these tendencies, in our still-sexist world"

    Conceding the point without conceding the moral high ground. Isn't that what science is really all about?
    , @Johan Schmidt
    It's called "post-normal science". Facts and methodology matter little when set against the Greater Truth.
    , @Anonymous IV
    Horgan has said, on more than one occasion, that the whole field of inquiry of race/IQ (or whatever other traits) should be taboo in science. Not because it is invalid, but because "nothing good can come of it" or something to that effect. So, yeah, he is practically conceding the point, but still saying it should be forbidden to talk about. He has clearly expanded his taboo list to include sex differences, too.
    , @Mr. Anon

    But I fear that biological theorizing about these tendencies, in our still-sexist world, does more harm than good.
     
    Yeah, if scientists start theorizing about things, who knows where it might lead? I'm agin' it.
    , @AnotherDad

    How does one even write such stuff? Is he trying to sabotage his own side?
     
    This is one of those things i just don't get.

    There's several "facts" he cites that are not just wrong, but clearly (and well-established as) wrong--levels of violence in hunter-gatherer socities (i.e. they are high) and women in more egalitarian nations performing equally in math (there is no where this is true; actually the only places women outperform guys are some Arab nations where the guys just suck and the girls win with their sit still and comply skill set). In fact, some Norwegian guy did a mildly humorous video on the male/female occupational divide in Norway. Sexual equality blah, blah, blah and women still don't want to be engineers and work on things ... they want jobs where they sit around talking to each other. And, of course, obvious physical sexual-dimorphism is staring him in the face. Women aren't miraculously the size of men in hunter-gatherer societies. We know this.

    I would be embarrassed to yammer on spouting obviously false and stupid "facts". Yet, lying obviouly and stupidly just doesn't seem to bother Horgan and lots of like minded lefties.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. >Saini points out, anthropological research has revealed that hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian

    Except they weren’t, and many people even on the left are starting to realize that.

    http://quillette.com/2017/12/16/romanticizing-hunter-gatherer/

    >Even in circumstances where hunters give away more of their meat than they end up receiving from others in return, good hunters tend to be accorded high status, and rewarded with more opportunities to reproduce everywhere the relationship has been studied.13 When taking into account ‘embodied wealth’ such as hunting returns and reproductive success, and ‘relational wealth’ such as the number of exchange and sharing partners, Alden Smith et al. calculated that hunter-gatherer societies have a ‘moderate’ level of inequality, roughly comparable to that of Denmark.14 While this is less inequality than most agricultural societies and nation states, it’s not quite the level of egalitarianism many have come to expect from hunter-gatherers.

    >In the realm of reproductive success, hunter-gatherers are even more unequal than modern industrialized populations, exhibiting what is called “greater reproductive skew,” with males having significantly larger variance in reproductive success than females.15 Among the Ache of Paraguay, males have over 4 times the variance in reproductive success that females do, which is one of the highest ratios recorded. This means some males end up having lots of children with different women, while a significant number of males end up having none at all. This is reflected in the fact that polygynous marriage is practiced in the majority of hunter-gatherer societies for which there are data. Across these societies, the average age at marriage for females is only 13.8, while the average age at marriage for males is 20.7.16 Rather than defending what would be considered child marriage in contemporary Western societies, anthropologists often omit mentioning this information entirely.

    >According to anthropologists Douglas Fry and Geneviève Souillac, “Nomadic forager data suggest a human predilection toward equality, including gender equality, in ethos and action,”17 yet the available data do not support this notion in the slightest. On the contrary, in 1978 Robert Tonkinson had found that, among the Mardu hunter-gatherers of Australia, “Mardu men accord themselves greater ritual responsibility, higher status, more power, and more rights than women. It is a society in which male interests generally prevail when rights are contested and in the centrally important arena of religious life.”18 Among the Hiwi of Venezuela, and the Ache of Paraguay, female infants and children are disproportionately victims of infanticide, neglect, and child homicide.19 20 It is in fact quite common in hunter-gatherer societies that are at war, or heavily reliant on male hunting for subsistence, for female infants to be habitually neglected or killed.21 22 In 1931, Knud Rasmussen recorded that, among the Netsilik Inuit, who were almost wholly reliant on male hunting and fishing, out of 96 births from parents he interviewed, 38 girls were killed (nearly 40 percent).23

    There was no equality in the hunter gatherer community aside from the inevitable equality in poverty.

    Read More
    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Cowboy Shaw
    James Suzman, who is the author of 'Affluence without Abundance', a book that gets mentioned in dispatches in this current debate has some interesting relatives.

    His brother Mark is President and Chief Strategy Officer for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Leadership/Executive-Leadership-Team/Mark-Suzman

    And their aunt (or something like that) was Helen Suzman, who famously campaigned against Apartheid in South Africa for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Suzman

    Suffice to say neither brother lives in South Africa now. God forbid that one might think that some people just sort of drop into places, mess them up a bit, then move on elsewhere to repeat the formula.
    , @vinteuil
    Thanks for this. Should've known that I couldn't trust an "anthropologist" to get the basic facts right.

    "Across these societies, the average age at marriage for females is only 13.8..."

    Wow - that's the average?
    , @Expletive Deleted
    Completely agree. Even the vicar noticed that :

    The North American Indians, considered as a people, cannot justly be called free and equal. In all the accounts we have of
    them, and, indeed, of most other savage nations, the women are
    represented as much more completely in a state of slavery to the
    men than the poor are to the rich in civilized countries. One
    half the nation appears to act as Helots to the other half, and
    the misery that checks population falls chiefly, as it always
    must do, upon that part whose condition is lowest in the scale of
    society.
     

    In estimating the happiness of a savage nation, we must not fix our
    eyes only on the warrior in the prime of life: he is one of a
    hundred: he is the gentleman, the man of fortune, the chances
    have been in his favour and many efforts have failed ere this
    fortunate being was produced, whose guardian genius should
    preserve him through the numberless dangers with which he would
    be surrounded from infancy to manhood.
     
    http://www.fulltextarchive.com/page/An-Essay-on-the-Principle-of-Population1/
    , @Chrisnonymous

    Alden Smith et al. calculated that hunter-gatherer societies have a ‘moderate’ level of inequality, roughly comparable to that of Denmark
     
    Egads! Denmark! Next they'll be telling us hunter-gatherers are immigration restrictions with a high standard if living!
    , @TWS
    At the end of the nineteenth beginning of the twentieth century high status Indians in local tribes sometimes had more than one wife. I knew a few guys who came from a, 'canoe' wedding. Their moms had been kidnapped and forced into marriage.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. …hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian.

    Pirate ships, even more. Is either the kind of society we want to encourage?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cloud of Probable Matricide
    The invisible hook!
    , @TheJester
    So, it appears that our hunter-gatherer forebearers were egalitarian ... I mean communalists ... I mean communists.

    Therefore, communism and other leftist social and economic systems are grounded in human nature. This is science, you know. End of discussion.

    However, like iSteve, one question plagues me. If they were "hunter-gatherer" societies, how did they decide who "hunted" and who "gathered"? I get it, the men stayed behind to forage for berries and care for infants while the women traipsed into the wild to fend off hostile tribes and hunt large game in order to celebrate their newfound equality and provide a positive example for all future generations of women. (But who nursed the infants? A malformed and malicious question ... let's not go there!)

    Therefore, feminism is also grounded in human nature. This is science, you know. End of discussion.

    I like this new "science". It is so easy to digest. One could memorize all of the first principles and plow through the entire pedagogy in five minutes. All one needs to know is what is politically correct and what isn't. If a scientific thesis supports what is politically correct, it is "fact-based". If it is not politically correct, it is a "hate fact". Hateful facts are not allowed because they are evil ... in fact, they are crimes.

    Did I get this right? Do they print this stuff in Scientific American?

    , @syonredux

    …hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian.

    Pirate ships, even more. Is either the kind of society we want to encourage?
     
    SJWs are very pro-Pirate these days. Cf, for example, the work of Marcus Rediker:

    By expropriating a merchant ship (after a mutiny or a capture), pirates seized the means of maritime production and declared it to be the common property of those who did its work. They abolished the wage relation central to the process of capitalist accumulation. So rather than work for wages using the tools and machine (the ship) owned by a merchant capitalist, pirates commanded the ship as their own property and shared equally in the risks of their common adventure.
     
    (Villains of All Nations: Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age, p. 70.

    And then there's the TV series Black Sails, which centered around the idea that pirates were LGBTQ fighters against colonialism....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @Luke Lea
    Horgan's comeback: Ethnographic reports that the men were hunters and the women gatherers were all written by men.

    Horgan’s comeback: Ethnographic reports that the men were hunters and the women gatherers were all written by men.

    He’s got a point, you know. Most of those ethnographic reports were written on the walls of caves and were not subject to the rigorous peer-review process, as is Mr. Horgan’s work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmBG0eZpvXM
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. How does one get ‘biological inferiority’ out of gender-specific specialisation?

    The more interesting study of last year’s female marchers is not whether they wanted to be dominated by males, rather did the image of these women running around in their clever hats provoke any desire in males to dominate them in physical ways.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Well did it?
    , @Corn
    “rather did the image of these women running around in their clever hats provoke any desire in males to dominate them in physical ways.”

    Pass. I’ll take the farmer’s daughter behind door #3
    , @unpc downunder
    Feminists are more interested in dominating other women. Feminism is a fight for supremacy among females.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Devil Gathers Prada:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. He’s right about Eva-psych that it fails to acknowledge massive changes that have occurred over the last 10k years, but he and ego-psych both fail to grasp the significance of the “10,000 Year Explosion”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. The mass sex assaults/razzias perpetrated by MENA interlopers of Germany upon German women back in year 2015 tell you more about the real world as it is than any amount of pseudo-scientific word-play pomposity verbosity by Horgan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Steve,

    Humor does not work with ideologues. The ideology replaces facts, logic, and the ability to allow humor to help them see how wrong they may be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. j says: • Website

    Obviously! Men and women enjoyed equal opportunities in the workplace and received the same wages, women never faced harassment or violence (except at bride kidnapping), had equal educational opportunities i.e. none, there were no institutional barriers for participation in society (except when raiding the next tribe to take slaves). It is remarkable how anthropologists missed all the remarkable equality of primitive societies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. @Anonymous

    But I fear that biological theorizing about these tendencies, in our still-sexist world, does more harm than good. It empowers the social injustice warriors, and that is the last thing our world needs.
     
    How does one even write such stuff? Is he trying to sabotage his own side?

    “But I fear that biological theorizing about these tendencies, in our still-sexist world”

    Conceding the point without conceding the moral high ground. Isn’t that what science is really all about?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @Reg Cæsar

    ...hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian.
     
    Pirate ships, even more. Is either the kind of society we want to encourage?

    The invisible hook!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @Anonymous

    But I fear that biological theorizing about these tendencies, in our still-sexist world, does more harm than good. It empowers the social injustice warriors, and that is the last thing our world needs.
     
    How does one even write such stuff? Is he trying to sabotage his own side?

    It’s called “post-normal science”. Facts and methodology matter little when set against the Greater Truth.

    Read More
    • Agree: Frau Katze
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. “except for that whole hunter-gatherer part”

    How sad is it that these folks just don’t get the joke?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    It is sad...but a fact: liberals lost their sense of humor in the early 90's. They clutch at pearls every day, now, and are like scent dogs tracking sexism/racism/isms. Horgan is just pissed off because Steve mildly, bitch-slapped Horgan, who deserved it.

    Horgan is all offended and all...like a girl! As a woman, I can honestly say no man has ever oppressed me or kept me from doing anything I want to do. However, I was called an ice queen; intense; a ball buster, and super competitive...often by women! I never bought into the "everything is sexism" thing that was sold to women in the 70's. And, I have taught my sons how to behave like gentlemen, and, to look for women that are happy - the most important thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. The key phrase in the Scientific American article comes near the end:

    “biological theorizing about these tendencies, in our still-sexist world, does more harm than good.”

    So this states clearly (although indirectly and implicitly) how Mr. Horgan views scientific research: science should look for theories and evidence that support the author’s political goals, and ignore any theories or evidence that go against those goals. So much for objective science.

    Read More
    • Agree: Travis
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Wait, women really aren’t biologically into powerful men who are in charge of things? This seems related to Steve’s first rule of female journalism. Soon, hot women will realize they are being oppressed into thinking guys like Horgan aren’t sexy. Deep down, the hottest women crave peaceful, egalitarian, men who fight the social injustice warriors with their online words.

    In the meantime, someone should warn Horgan not to read Heartiste. He might faint.

    As an aside: Alt-right pundit???

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Forster's A Room With a View had some observations about female preferences. Lucy, played by a young Helena Bonham Carter, seemed more interested in energetic George (Julian Sands) than in dweeby snobbish Cecil (Daniel Day-Lewis). The latter had his own recognition of the difference in appeal when mentioning how some chaps did or didn't do this or that, like playing tennis. That was filmed in the mid-1980s so was less bound by our modern restrictions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. I’m reading James C. Scott’s Against the Grain. Before the advent of sedentism that led to political states, all were hunters-gatherers. In the new arrangement, women played a subservient role in households. Households were taxed by the rulers of the state. As for the life-style of hunters-gatherers, the life-styles of surviving hunter-gatherer tribes are likely a token: a strict division of activities according to that tribe’s tradition. The hunters-gatherers apparently bartered with sedentists with captured slaves for agricultural produce. Sedentist life led to shortened stature and other health deficits due to a monoculture diet of grain and epidemic disease. Oddly, sedentists are much more fertile than hunter-gatherers. Scott’s explicative analogy is that homo sapiens is as much a domesticated species as the animals and plants they domesticate, both sharing early menses and extended fertility.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "Oddly, sedentists are much more fertile than hunter-gatherers." It's hard to move around following game if you are impeded by lots of children. In particular a woman carrying a baby and holding the hand of a toddler is fully occupied.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. If it were up to feminists and their soy – boys, we’d devolve into a hunter-gatherer society. Kids in tow, women would be finally happy collecting berries, almonds and firewood for their men, who’d beat them to a pulp every evening for failing to work hard enough for them. Back in their primate brain, that’s marital bliss for woke women everywhere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Hogan is a genuine crackpot. He made some money from his crackpottery in the 1990′s by claiming the end of mathematical proofs was at hand. He also claimed that science was dead at some point. His star faded, though, as he ran out of ways to claim the end of knowledge.

    I read a lot of humanities papers for my Xirl Science bits. The thing that repeatedly comes up is the claim that there is no such thing as facts or reason. They don’t put it that way. Instead, they claim that the “structures” are artificial and “exclusive.” Alternatively, they take the ID’er tact and claim that all scientific knowledge is prone to revision, so therefore it is only partially accurate.

    I’ll also note that “science writer” John Hogan has no math or science.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    So why does Scientific American not fire Horgan and get someone who has both some kind of scientific education and an ability to write.

    I find it hard to believe such people don’t exist.

    So, one is left to conclude that the magazine agrees with him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Ironically, Horgan’s journalism is a great example of the sort of male behavior he decries. Through his b*llsh*t, he has attained a good deal of social status. I would be willing to bet he’s had sex with lots of starry eyed young women. And to top it off, he probably believes that he’s some kind of supreme intellectual and not a charlatan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. I hear that Horgan has applied for membership in several right-wing organizations to contribute toward enabling American society to emulate the Iranian model and introduce a 40% minimal quota for male students in several STEM subjects.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. Ironically, John Horgan’s most famous work is The End of Science, which might have more accurately been titled, The Exhaustion of Science, wherein he argues, plausibly, that scientists today are mere refiners, extenders and applyers of the great revelations of past eras’ scientists. I happen to think this is correct.

    The actual End of Science as a method of rational inquiry, on the other hand, is what he himself is now accomplishing.

    “biological theorizing … does more harm than good.”

    If you say so, Pope Horgan of the New Cathedral…

    “Scientific American ‘has been adamantly PC since before PC was a thing,’ which as someone who began writing for the magazine in 1986 I take as a compliment. “

    Yeah, this guy is a political officer first, scientist sec–… well actually he’s not scientific at all. He just borrows the nomenclature of science to promote the Cult of the Current Year.

    John Horgan is the wannabe Pope Urban of the 21st century.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator

    Ironically, John Horgan’s most famous work is The End of Science, which might have more accurately been titled, The Exhaustion of Science, wherein he argues, plausibly, that scientists today are mere refiners, extenders and applyers of the great revelations of past eras’ scientists.
     
    This can't have been a novel observation. Or was it?
    , @Mr. Anon
    Remember, John Horgan knows more than you do.

    He has a masters degree..........................innnn journalism!

    (Anybody get that reference?)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Reg Cæsar

    ...hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian.
     
    Pirate ships, even more. Is either the kind of society we want to encourage?

    So, it appears that our hunter-gatherer forebearers were egalitarian … I mean communalists … I mean communists.

    Therefore, communism and other leftist social and economic systems are grounded in human nature. This is science, you know. End of discussion.

    However, like iSteve, one question plagues me. If they were “hunter-gatherer” societies, how did they decide who “hunted” and who “gathered”? I get it, the men stayed behind to forage for berries and care for infants while the women traipsed into the wild to fend off hostile tribes and hunt large game in order to celebrate their newfound equality and provide a positive example for all future generations of women. (But who nursed the infants? A malformed and malicious question … let’s not go there!)

    Therefore, feminism is also grounded in human nature. This is science, you know. End of discussion.

    I like this new “science”. It is so easy to digest. One could memorize all of the first principles and plow through the entire pedagogy in five minutes. All one needs to know is what is politically correct and what isn’t. If a scientific thesis supports what is politically correct, it is “fact-based”. If it is not politically correct, it is a “hate fact”. Hateful facts are not allowed because they are evil … in fact, they are crimes.

    Did I get this right? Do they print this stuff in Scientific American?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Orthodox
    There was a study done a few years ago that claimed being in favor of markets/capitalism was a sign of evolutionary advancement.

    Inability to get beyond familial or community (communism) economics was a sign the person hasn't evolved enough to understand the concepts.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    Did I get this right? Do they print this stuff in Scientific American?
     
    You did. Welcome to our glorious Soviet Future (tm).
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Heh. Division by sex for roles exists even in primates - chimpanzee females rarely hunt, but do show up afterward to "help" consume meat.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Hunter-gatherer societies do seem to be relatively egalitarian, compared to farming societies. Of course they still have role division by sex.

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "hunter-gatherer societies do seem to be relatively egalitarian"

    Well yes, you can't carry 3,000 acres, a castle and a Maserati on your back as a hunter-gatherer, nor can you leave them to your sons, who will have to grow up competing on a fairly level footing as hunters and warriors. All you can leave them is your hunter/warrior genes and some hand weapons.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Hunter-gatherer societies do seem to be relatively egalitarian, compared to farming societies. Of course they still have role division by sex.
     
    Ah, but can they have the rôle in the hay, that agrarians are well-known for?
    , @International Jew
    They were "egalitarian" in the economic dimension, in the sense that there were no Bill Gateses; there can't be, where nothing is accumulated (there's nothing to accumulate) and everyone works for himself.
    , @Almost Missouri
    The hunter-gatherer vs. agrarian comparisons are not like-kind. First, as Jack D points out, they compare impoverished hunter-gatherers vs. affluent agrarians. Second, they compare tiny hunter-gatherer tribes, e.g. Amazonians, vs. enormous agrarian civilizations, e.g., Babylon. Of course when your group is only a few dozen people, there won't be much stratification, irrespective of how you subsist.

    On the rare occasions that hunter-gatherers (well, herdsmen really) have managed to assemble a large nation, e.g., the Mongols, inequality mysteriously appears: the Khan has absolute power and wealth, the peons/slaves none, and the Khan's lieutenants in the middle.

    If you compare a hunter-gatherer tribe of a hundred souls with a subsistence farming village of a hundred souls, the (in)equality is about equal. Except that women probably get treated better in the farming village.

    Horganism ≠ Science.

    Horganism = Lysenkoism.

    , @JimB
    I don't suppose the egalitarianism of hunter gatherers might have something to do with the fact that hunting and gathering is a low skill occupation that everyone does about equally well. Agriculture, on the other hand, would tend to create winners and losers.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    The lack of any real way to accumulate wealth is the primary driver of such equality. Once they go beyond the hunter-gathering band stage, even in simple tribes such which can produce and preserve flour, there are clear instances of inequality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. In “War Before Civilization” Lawrence H. Keeley argues that when the number of men in a tribe fell below the number needed to defend the border, the tribe disappeared and the women were absorbed by neighboring tribes.

    Can you spell Rape of the Sabine Women?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel H
    >>Can you spell Rape of the Sabine Women?

    The Rape of the Sabine women was a setup by wily Sabine women who dug the bad boys of the Roman encampment. According to the stories, Rome was founded as a freebooter's camp full of refugees, debtors, highwayman, runaway slaves. All were welcome who cold stand their ground, only problem, not enough women. Sabine women, from a neighboring town, conspired with these bad boys to set up the "rape" (actually kidnapping, the Latin word is rapere, which means to seize or take). The outrage Sabine men came to confront the Romans but the Sabine women intervened and implored their fathers, uncles, brothers to accept a fait accompli and join together with the Romans - their now husbands - in friendship, which is what the Sabines did. They absorbed themselves into the Roman camp and became Romans, the first of many peoples to do so.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Simon in London
    Hunter-gatherer societies do seem to be relatively egalitarian, compared to farming societies. Of course they still have role division by sex.

    “hunter-gatherer societies do seem to be relatively egalitarian”

    Well yes, you can’t carry 3,000 acres, a castle and a Maserati on your back as a hunter-gatherer, nor can you leave them to your sons, who will have to grow up competing on a fairly level footing as hunters and warriors. All you can leave them is your hunter/warrior genes and some hand weapons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. What a deplorable cuck.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. News flash: Black celebrity apologizes:

    https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/celebrities/lewis-hamilton-apologizes-nephew-princess-1.15732239

    Guess which color trumps black?

    (Terribly sorry, that should read apologise and colour…)

    Read More
    • Replies: @rogue-one
    Hierarchy of victimhood. Apparently trans are above blacks (for now).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. “scientists today are mere refiners, extenders and applyers of the great revelations of past eras’ scientists.” Fundamental physics has been stuck since the 70s. The Golden Age of medicine is long past. Have there been revolutionary advances elsewhere? Even if not, wouldn’t substantial extensions and applications be pretty important things?

    As you can see, I agree with you at least half way. At least.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Hey, nothing against refining, extending and applying. Everyone does what they can, you know.

    But the refiners, extenders and appliers need something to refine, extend and apply. If there are no new revelations, the refiners, extenders and appliers run out of work eventually.

    Fifty-six years ago, Watson and Crick got the Nobel Prize for discovering DNA, work they did in the prior decade. This was the last time the Nobels recognized a genuine breakthrough. Since then, it's been mostly vaguer, esoteric stuff.

    That science has degenerated to mostly just refinements, extensions and applications wouldn't be terrible by itself, but this has apparently accompanied a degeneration in general understanding of what science is. When supposedly serious science journals like Scientific American are waving off actual science and promoting Current Yearism, I have to conclude that the rot is deep and there are ill consequences yet to come.

    , @AnotherDad

    Fundamental physics has been stuck since the 70s. The Golden Age of medicine is long past. Have there been revolutionary advances elsewhere?
     
    The Physics block seems to be the case.

    But Medicine? Not my field, but this seems completely wrong. Yeah, we haven't had anything with the sheer impact of antibiotics and getting vacines for the serious viral diseases.

    But medicine has been continually improving during my life in things like cancer treatment, heart disease treatment, joint replacements, micro/robo-surgery and--more debateable because of much of questionable utility--drugs. And we understand a whole lot more of microbiology and celluar processes. Lifespans and ability to live into old age with a decent quality of life have improved markedly.

    I told my family--target my kids--back in 2000 that this could be "the biological century". All the new genomic science and improved understanding of celluar biochemistry has the potentially to absolutely revolutionize medicine, going beyond the sort of patch and repair to tackling issues like aging. It's not impossible we're on the cusp--during my kid's lives--of dramatic improvements in overall health and lifespan.

    I'd agree that physics seems sort of "figured out" except for final "this is the math for why this is". We sort of basically know how the universe works.

    But while we already know about the major organ systems and roughly how cells function, there's just a whole lot we don't understand about the human body and how it works.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Simon in London
    Hunter-gatherer societies do seem to be relatively egalitarian, compared to farming societies. Of course they still have role division by sex.

    Hunter-gatherer societies do seem to be relatively egalitarian, compared to farming societies. Of course they still have role division by sex.

    Ah, but can they have the rôle in the hay, that agrarians are well-known for?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    If they have rôle-in-the-hay division by sex, count me out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Reg Cæsar
    News flash: Black celebrity apologizes:

    https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/celebrities/lewis-hamilton-apologizes-nephew-princess-1.15732239

    Guess which color trumps black?

    (Terribly sorry, that should read apologise and colour...)

    Hierarchy of victimhood. Apparently trans are above blacks (for now).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. 1. Formulate hypothesis
    2. Conduct experiments
    3. Explain how this proves white guys suck

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. @Luke Lea
    Horgan's comeback: Ethnographic reports that the men were hunters and the women gatherers were all written by men.

    Yes. Also, those writers were writing “outside their experience”. We need some actual hunter-gatherer sensitivity readers to put in their 2 cents.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Reg Cæsar

    Hunter-gatherer societies do seem to be relatively egalitarian, compared to farming societies. Of course they still have role division by sex.
     
    Ah, but can they have the rôle in the hay, that agrarians are well-known for?

    If they have rôle-in-the-hay division by sex, count me out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Simon in London
    Hunter-gatherer societies do seem to be relatively egalitarian, compared to farming societies. Of course they still have role division by sex.

    They were “egalitarian” in the economic dimension, in the sense that there were no Bill Gateses; there can’t be, where nothing is accumulated (there’s nothing to accumulate) and everyone works for himself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Modern hunter-gatherer societies which were studied by anthropologists, the most successful hunters are usually forced to share their booty with other members of the group in a kind of de facto progressive taxation, so the differences were probably even smaller than the differences in individual abilities, effort levels, etc.
    , @Jack D
    It's a two-way street - societies that are extremely poor are egalitarian are and societies that are egalitarian end up being extremely poor. Everyone has plenty of nothing.
    , @Opinionator
    How do you account then for the reproductive skew?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. The problem is that these obscurantists manage to obfuscate things enough for most casual readers skimming through such articles that they will get the impression that Science! is on their side while “alt-right pundit” Steve Sailer is an ignorant hick who is horribly sexist. Besides being horribly racist, of course.

    I know a lot of people who totally assume this to be Science!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    And that's why science makes a lousy religion.

    The positivists and materialists mistook the species they took it upon themselves to tutor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. @International Jew
    They were "egalitarian" in the economic dimension, in the sense that there were no Bill Gateses; there can't be, where nothing is accumulated (there's nothing to accumulate) and everyone works for himself.

    Modern hunter-gatherer societies which were studied by anthropologists, the most successful hunters are usually forced to share their booty with other members of the group in a kind of de facto progressive taxation, so the differences were probably even smaller than the differences in individual abilities, effort levels, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    "forced to share"

    Is it inconceivable to you that a skilled hunter would be more than happy to share with his tribe?
    , @Anon
    Of course successful hunters shared. They often bagged more than their own family could eat before it rotted. 'The tribe' you're talking about wasn't some random collection of people, but your own relatives, consisting of uncles, aunts, cousins, second cousins, etc., all of them being people you'd known since babyhood, etc. The emotional and protective bonds between you and the tribe were powerful, and of course you shared your food with them. You have to stop thinking about our modern-day atomized society where no one knows their next door neighbors. Hunter-gatherers were not like that at all. Everyone is a relative in hunter-gathering tribe, and even your marriage partners were often women who were anywhere from your 2nd through 4th cousins in blood relationship.

    Secondly, sharing food was how you acquired status. You provided, and the tribe listened to your opinions with respect and followed your leadership and advice. Look up the concept of 'Big Man' as anthropologists use it. Thirdly, the law of reciprocity applied. If you didn't bag anything that day, the successful hunter who did catch something shared his catch with you so you and your family wouldn't go hungry. All the hunters in the tribe did this as a matter of course. They didn't think of it as hunting for their own particular family, but as hunting for the tribe as a whole. Quite often, the men weren't hunting individually, but as a group, and they thought eating as something that was supposed to be a group activity as well. They would all carry back their game at the end of the day and have a big picnic for the whole tribe.

    , @ben tillman
    Have you read Christopher Boehm's Hierarchy in the Forest? D.S. Wilson is also worth reading.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. …while “alt-right pundit” Steve Sailer is an ignorant hick who is horribly sexist. Besides being horribly racist, of course.

    And horribly tall. Put him next to Robert Reich.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    …while “alt-right pundit” Steve Sailer is an ignorant hick who is horribly sexist. Besides being horribly racist, of course.

    And horribly tall. Put him next to Robert Reich.
     
    We must all be on guard against heightism. Absorb the wisdom of Ziad Ahmed :

    Things aren’t much better for the girls. Ahmed said he recently spoke to a girl at his school who said she wanted a boyfriend who was at least six feet tall.

    ▲▼He asked her why, and she said she wanted to be able to look up into his eyes. Which sounds sweet on the surface, but the conversation led Ahmed to believe that the girl basically wanted to be looked down on. Made smaller. Made the one to be protected, not be herself. In other words, she willingly is looking to be, in some measure, less than her (eventual) boyfriend, said Ahmed.


    He added that the overall point he is trying to make is that males and females buy into prescribed roles that make it hard for anyone who doesn’t fit into them to feel comfortable about who they are. And that we’re defining ourselves in all the wrong ways.

    “People are so much more multi-dimensional than one thing,” he said. “It’s OK to be whoever you are.” …
     
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/i-for-one-welcome-our-new-shamelessly-black-exploiting-white-hating-tiger-child-overlords/?highlight=Ahmed

    You see, women who desire tall men are simply accepting sexual stereotypes about female inferiority. A WOKE woman, in contrast, would rather tower over her boyfriend....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Women have wide ranging desires. Some women want to be dominated. We can look to our politics and religions, & see many women who vote & worship against there own interests. There are many & varied explanations for this, but it is very disturbing to see this question posed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @al gore rhythms
    What do you think is the cause of women's desire to be dominated then?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @International Jew
    They were "egalitarian" in the economic dimension, in the sense that there were no Bill Gateses; there can't be, where nothing is accumulated (there's nothing to accumulate) and everyone works for himself.

    It’s a two-way street – societies that are extremely poor are egalitarian are and societies that are egalitarian end up being extremely poor. Everyone has plenty of nothing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Countries in Northern Europe are widely regarded as the most egalitarian in the world, and also as the wealthiest.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. I’d recommend “The Old Way” by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas.

    She lived with the Bushmen of the Kalahari, and writes about how they hunted and gathered. Both women and men did both, but only men hunted *big* game (deer, etc.) which was special because it was shared with the tribe.

    Everyone, included children, hunted “slow” game (snakes, small rodents etc.) which did not need to be shared.

    Past hunts was the major topic of campfire conversation for men.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Past hunts was the major topic of campfire conversation for men.
     
    Some things never change.
    , @Anonymous

    She lived with the Bushmen of the Kalahari
     
    How many Bushmen did she live with at any one time? Was there a nightly rota?

    Many of the famous women "anthropologists" of the 20th century seem to have found their savage subjects quite penetrating.
    , @Frau Katze

    Past hunts was the major topic of campfire conversation for men.
     
    I can believe that. Some things don’t change.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Alt-Right Pundit

    You comfortable with this label, Steve?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. @reiner Tor
    Modern hunter-gatherer societies which were studied by anthropologists, the most successful hunters are usually forced to share their booty with other members of the group in a kind of de facto progressive taxation, so the differences were probably even smaller than the differences in individual abilities, effort levels, etc.

    “forced to share”

    Is it inconceivable to you that a skilled hunter would be more than happy to share with his tribe?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jimi
    Exactly. There is only so much meat the hunter could eat before it spoils. It would be stupid not to share it.
    , @reiner Tor
    It's conceivable, but what I read, there were mechanisms in place to essentially force it. If a hunter didn't share enough, there started gossip about him, but the pressure could grow until eventually a hunter considered to be selfish might be chased away from the group or even killed. (The latter I think if there were other problems with him as well.) Another point is that there is only so much one hunter can eat. He has to share anyway, or else the meat will rot.

    And then there's the problem which some commenters have already mentioned, that the hunter-gatherer societies anthropologists managed to study were all small and impoverished. Larger scale, richer hunter-gatherer societies have existed in historical times (I think some Amerind tribes or tribal confederations qualified, the richest of which lived in California, but I think the Iroquois were also mostly hunter-gatherers), and they had more stratification.

    In any event, we're now talking about economic equality of families. The Pseudoscientific American says there was "gender equality", which is nonsense anyway.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    If you're killing large game, outside of very cold climates there's no downside to sharing, as the meat will go off before a single person or family can eat it all. And the upside is the social status of being the guy who fed the group, plus reasonable expectation of reciprocation.

    (I imagine a lot of large game hunting would be done by a male group anyway, but there'll always be the one or two guys who get in harms way to do the initial wounding, and the place of danger would be the place of honour).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Simon in London
    Hunter-gatherer societies do seem to be relatively egalitarian, compared to farming societies. Of course they still have role division by sex.

    The hunter-gatherer vs. agrarian comparisons are not like-kind. First, as Jack D points out, they compare impoverished hunter-gatherers vs. affluent agrarians. Second, they compare tiny hunter-gatherer tribes, e.g. Amazonians, vs. enormous agrarian civilizations, e.g., Babylon. Of course when your group is only a few dozen people, there won’t be much stratification, irrespective of how you subsist.

    On the rare occasions that hunter-gatherers (well, herdsmen really) have managed to assemble a large nation, e.g., the Mongols, inequality mysteriously appears: the Khan has absolute power and wealth, the peons/slaves none, and the Khan’s lieutenants in the middle.

    If you compare a hunter-gatherer tribe of a hundred souls with a subsistence farming village of a hundred souls, the (in)equality is about equal. Except that women probably get treated better in the farming village.

    Horganism ≠ Science.

    Horganism = Lysenkoism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Coburn
    Good point about the Mongols. The Khans amassed extraordinary wealth.

    But, I disagree with your notion of an underclass mongols in poverty. The Mongols took slaves. The slaves became the mongol underclass.

    I understand slavery is also a feature of many hunter-gatherer societies. Notice that the SJWs elide over that in their celebration of hunter-gather.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Mongols weren't hunter-gatherers anymore - they could maintain wealth in the form of cattle, and thus could sufficiently maintain a dedicated warrior class. The hunter-gatherers they describe are usually !Kung or certain North American native tribes, who had not developed any way to preserve wealth. Such societies are highly equal because nothing can be accumulated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @AndrewR
    "forced to share"

    Is it inconceivable to you that a skilled hunter would be more than happy to share with his tribe?

    Exactly. There is only so much meat the hunter could eat before it spoils. It would be stupid not to share it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Achmed E. Newman

    Horgan’s comeback: Ethnographic reports that the men were hunters and the women gatherers were all written by men.
     
    He's got a point, you know. Most of those ethnographic reports were written on the walls of caves and were not subject to the rigorous peer-review process, as is Mr. Horgan's work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Thanks for the Steely Dan, MEH. I did not recognize that song till the chorus. The world lost one of those 2 great musicians recently. ;-{
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Reg Cæsar

    ...hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian.
     
    Pirate ships, even more. Is either the kind of society we want to encourage?

    …hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian.

    Pirate ships, even more. Is either the kind of society we want to encourage?

    SJWs are very pro-Pirate these days. Cf, for example, the work of Marcus Rediker:

    By expropriating a merchant ship (after a mutiny or a capture), pirates seized the means of maritime production and declared it to be the common property of those who did its work. They abolished the wage relation central to the process of capitalist accumulation. So rather than work for wages using the tools and machine (the ship) owned by a merchant capitalist, pirates commanded the ship as their own property and shared equally in the risks of their common adventure.

    (Villains of All Nations: Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age, p. 70.

    And then there’s the TV series Black Sails, which centered around the idea that pirates were LGBTQ fighters against colonialism….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    So rather than work for wages using the tools and machine (the ship) owned by a merchant capitalist, pirates commanded the ship as their own property and shared equally in the risks of their common adventure.
     
    Sounds like a model socialist society. Marcus Rediker seems to think so. I think I read or heard once that the average 18th century carribean pirates career lasted something like 18 months, before he starved to death, or starved to the point of succumbing to disease or dying in a desperate attack to procure some food. Yay socialism!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. This is tangential, but would the proposals to plant white collegians in minority families’ homes to introduce more sesquipedalianisms to their children go against the Third Amendment?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. @dearieme
    "scientists today are mere refiners, extenders and applyers of the great revelations of past eras’ scientists." Fundamental physics has been stuck since the 70s. The Golden Age of medicine is long past. Have there been revolutionary advances elsewhere? Even if not, wouldn't substantial extensions and applications be pretty important things?

    As you can see, I agree with you at least half way. At least.

    Hey, nothing against refining, extending and applying. Everyone does what they can, you know.

    But the refiners, extenders and appliers need something to refine, extend and apply. If there are no new revelations, the refiners, extenders and appliers run out of work eventually.

    Fifty-six years ago, Watson and Crick got the Nobel Prize for discovering DNA, work they did in the prior decade. This was the last time the Nobels recognized a genuine breakthrough. Since then, it’s been mostly vaguer, esoteric stuff.

    That science has degenerated to mostly just refinements, extensions and applications wouldn’t be terrible by itself, but this has apparently accompanied a degeneration in general understanding of what science is. When supposedly serious science journals like Scientific American are waving off actual science and promoting Current Yearism, I have to conclude that the rot is deep and there are ill consequences yet to come.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    But the refiners, extenders and appliers need something to refine, extend and apply. If there are no new revelations, the refiners, extenders and appliers run out of work eventually.
     
    China was the opposite, though. They had the "revelations", paper, gunpowder, maritime power, etc, but lacked the refiners, extenders, and appliers to do anything with them.

    "Refiners" brings to mind the "team dimension profile" developed by Allen Fahden and Srinivasan Namakkal.

    https://internalchange.com/wp-content/uploads/IWCO-063.pdf

    Here's a brief summary, which doesn't credit the creators by name:

    http://infinityconcepts.net/2012/02/team-dynamics-the-4-positions-that-create-an-effective-team/

    Fahden once wrote a book, then rented a storefront for a bookstore that carried only that book. It made News of the Weird. Now he's associated with Mike Veeck, "the man who killed disco".

    , @dearieme
    "Watson and Crick got the Nobel Prize for discovering DNA": not exactly. They deduced its structure, which immediately implied its working principle. Knowledge of its existence was old hat.

    I'm trying to think of anything else post (say) 1950/60 that was a big deal. Integrated circuits? Plate Tectonics as an explanation for how Continental Drift happens was an advance, though you might say it was a minor one since everybody with anything between the ears had already accepted that Continental Drift happened. Perhaps a bit harsh.

    How about the working of the immune system? Was that solved before 1950? Anything profound in molecular biology and genetics? I know of a chap who gave up Theoretical Chemistry in the 6os because "it has all been done". Come to think of it, there has been a dramatic advance in the understanding of the life of trees in woodland. Bolt-from-the-blue advance, but in a deeply unfashionable field of course; it has none of the glitz that theoretical physicists used to claim for themselves. I suppose the antics of "environmentalists" have given serious ecological science a bad name. Similarly the no-account field of archaeology has been hugely advanced by the combination of pollen studies, carbon dating, dendrochronology, plus other dating methods. Has the advance finished though?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @AndrewR
    "forced to share"

    Is it inconceivable to you that a skilled hunter would be more than happy to share with his tribe?

    It’s conceivable, but what I read, there were mechanisms in place to essentially force it. If a hunter didn’t share enough, there started gossip about him, but the pressure could grow until eventually a hunter considered to be selfish might be chased away from the group or even killed. (The latter I think if there were other problems with him as well.) Another point is that there is only so much one hunter can eat. He has to share anyway, or else the meat will rot.

    And then there’s the problem which some commenters have already mentioned, that the hunter-gatherer societies anthropologists managed to study were all small and impoverished. Larger scale, richer hunter-gatherer societies have existed in historical times (I think some Amerind tribes or tribal confederations qualified, the richest of which lived in California, but I think the Iroquois were also mostly hunter-gatherers), and they had more stratification.

    In any event, we’re now talking about economic equality of families. The Pseudoscientific American says there was “gender equality”, which is nonsense anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yak-15
    The most skilled hunters shared because they understood that their sharing would buy them special social status and access to the best females in the tribe. I
    , @John Cunningham
    The coastal Indians along the Canadian and Southeast Alaska littoral were relatively well off given the huge salmon runs plus other seafood.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @MEH 0910
    Good piece last year by Jerry Coyne: When ideology trumps biology

    If I was the late Andy Rooney, I’d say “You know what really bothers me? When science shows some facts about nature, and then someone rejects those facts because they’re inconvenient or uncomfortable for their ideology.”
     

    Good piece last year by Jerry Coyne: When ideology trumps biology:

    If I was the late Andy Rooney, I’d say “You know what really bothers me? When science shows some facts about nature, and then someone rejects those facts because they’re inconvenient or uncomfortable for their ideology.”

    Isn’t that Jerry Coyne the same guy who criticized Watson for suggesting that African intelligence was a bit on the low side?

    What has happened to make him concerned now about ideology trumping science?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEH 0910

    Isn’t that Jerry Coyne the same guy who criticized Watson for suggesting that African intelligence was a bit on the low side?

    What has happened to make him concerned now about ideology trumping science?
     
    While disagreeing with Watson, Coyne did write that he's against censorship of Watson.

    Interestingly, Jerry Coyne's thesis adviser was of all people Richard Lewontin, who he still has fond regards for: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/10/23/a-visit-with-the-boss/
    https://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/p1140091.jpg?w=587&h=440
    https://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/p1140098.jpg?w=591&h=443

    Horgan mentions that skeptic (and fellow Scientific American columnist) Michael Shermer criticized his piece. Shermer used to be in the tank for Stephen Jay Gould. I suspect that Shermer had his eyes opened when the explanation of Lewontin's Fallacy was popularized.
    , @MEH 0910
    How Jerry Coyne splits the difference as of August 2017:
    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/08/28/a-sensible-article-on-human-race/
    Coyne's against ideological denial of biological differences.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    I’d say white women have been picking men who are competent, not so much dominant. There are too many beta males alive for the latter to be true. If every woman wanted an alpha, there would be nothing but white alpha males around after a few thousand years of breeding. The environment whites evolved in, Northern Europe at the end of an ice age and with winters that need to be planned ahead for, was a much harder place to survive in without ingenuity and problem-solving ability, so competence was the supreme priority. In comparison, it was easy to find food year-round in Africa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles
    Well, as I understand it, the rule of an alpha in nature is often just a few years, whereafter he is deposed by his trusted lieutenants (if a chimp) or by the arrival of one or more youthful competitors (if a lion) and killed, maimed and/or run off. Numerous former betas will have their shot at the harem over time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. From the journals of Lewis a Clark alone it is clear that hunter-gatherer societies cannot be forced into the mold of Horgan’s daydreams. Reading the journals it could be seen that females embraced their subservient roles, but that would count as one of Horgan’s much feared unfortunate consequences of examining the facts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    Good call. The journals say that the Mandan men treated their women as perfect slaves.

    Anyway, this guy needs to go live as a hunter-gatherer for a year or so in the interests of primary research. Even with modern technology I'd wager he'd barely make it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Reg Cæsar

    ...while “alt-right pundit” Steve Sailer is an ignorant hick who is horribly sexist. Besides being horribly racist, of course.
     
    And horribly tall. Put him next to Robert Reich.

    …while “alt-right pundit” Steve Sailer is an ignorant hick who is horribly sexist. Besides being horribly racist, of course.

    And horribly tall. Put him next to Robert Reich.

    We must all be on guard against heightism. Absorb the wisdom of Ziad Ahmed :

    Things aren’t much better for the girls. Ahmed said he recently spoke to a girl at his school who said she wanted a boyfriend who was at least six feet tall.

    ▲▼He asked her why, and she said she wanted to be able to look up into his eyes. Which sounds sweet on the surface, but the conversation led Ahmed to believe that the girl basically wanted to be looked down on. Made smaller. Made the one to be protected, not be herself. In other words, she willingly is looking to be, in some measure, less than her (eventual) boyfriend, said Ahmed.

    He added that the overall point he is trying to make is that males and females buy into prescribed roles that make it hard for anyone who doesn’t fit into them to feel comfortable about who they are. And that we’re defining ourselves in all the wrong ways.

    “People are so much more multi-dimensional than one thing,” he said. “It’s OK to be whoever you are.” …

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/i-for-one-welcome-our-new-shamelessly-black-exploiting-white-hating-tiger-child-overlords/?highlight=Ahmed

    You see, women who desire tall men are simply accepting sexual stereotypes about female inferiority. A WOKE woman, in contrast, would rather tower over her boyfriend….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Mindy Kaling said that a very Nordic male co-star brought out the feeling common in women (though not her) that they want men who make them feel "tiny".
    , @prosa123
    "You see, women who desire tall men are simply accepting sexual stereotypes about female inferiority. "

    Or she might think tall men are more Alpha. Or, as I suspect is usually the case, she likes a man who happens to be tall.
    , @Stephen Marle II
    This kid reminds me of Sailer's Law of Female Journalism in a way. This is the article that is the source of the tallness quote:

    https://communitynews.org/2014/08/22/princeton-teen-works-to-change-perceptions-and-prejudice/

    The sense I get from reading that is that the kid wants to stamp out stereotypes that get in the way of his being considered hot and attractive to girls. Look at the photo of him: he's short, next to the girl, and brown skinned and dorky. If only girls were driven wild by that kind of kid! But they aren't. So we must have some sort of revolution to change things.

    I'm not sure what the result of such a revolution would be, however. If the result is that short, brown dorks are at the top of the popularity pyramid, has anything changed, stereotype and fairness wise? If, on the other hand, hotness and popularity are gone and everyone is equal, and nobody senses any particular attraction to anyone else over some mean norm, and just randomly pairs with someone of the opposite sex, what has life become? Would that be an acceptable outcome for the kid?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor
    Modern hunter-gatherer societies which were studied by anthropologists, the most successful hunters are usually forced to share their booty with other members of the group in a kind of de facto progressive taxation, so the differences were probably even smaller than the differences in individual abilities, effort levels, etc.

    Of course successful hunters shared. They often bagged more than their own family could eat before it rotted. ‘The tribe’ you’re talking about wasn’t some random collection of people, but your own relatives, consisting of uncles, aunts, cousins, second cousins, etc., all of them being people you’d known since babyhood, etc. The emotional and protective bonds between you and the tribe were powerful, and of course you shared your food with them. You have to stop thinking about our modern-day atomized society where no one knows their next door neighbors. Hunter-gatherers were not like that at all. Everyone is a relative in hunter-gathering tribe, and even your marriage partners were often women who were anywhere from your 2nd through 4th cousins in blood relationship.

    Secondly, sharing food was how you acquired status. You provided, and the tribe listened to your opinions with respect and followed your leadership and advice. Look up the concept of ‘Big Man’ as anthropologists use it. Thirdly, the law of reciprocity applied. If you didn’t bag anything that day, the successful hunter who did catch something shared his catch with you so you and your family wouldn’t go hungry. All the hunters in the tribe did this as a matter of course. They didn’t think of it as hunting for their own particular family, but as hunting for the tribe as a whole. Quite often, the men weren’t hunting individually, but as a group, and they thought eating as something that was supposed to be a group activity as well. They would all carry back their game at the end of the day and have a big picnic for the whole tribe.

    Read More
    • Agree: Alden, reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Sharing with complete strangers, often including the sharing of women, is also firmly established in the historical record.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Almost Missouri
    Hey, nothing against refining, extending and applying. Everyone does what they can, you know.

    But the refiners, extenders and appliers need something to refine, extend and apply. If there are no new revelations, the refiners, extenders and appliers run out of work eventually.

    Fifty-six years ago, Watson and Crick got the Nobel Prize for discovering DNA, work they did in the prior decade. This was the last time the Nobels recognized a genuine breakthrough. Since then, it's been mostly vaguer, esoteric stuff.

    That science has degenerated to mostly just refinements, extensions and applications wouldn't be terrible by itself, but this has apparently accompanied a degeneration in general understanding of what science is. When supposedly serious science journals like Scientific American are waving off actual science and promoting Current Yearism, I have to conclude that the rot is deep and there are ill consequences yet to come.

    But the refiners, extenders and appliers need something to refine, extend and apply. If there are no new revelations, the refiners, extenders and appliers run out of work eventually.

    China was the opposite, though. They had the “revelations”, paper, gunpowder, maritime power, etc, but lacked the refiners, extenders, and appliers to do anything with them.

    “Refiners” brings to mind the “team dimension profile” developed by Allen Fahden and Srinivasan Namakkal.

    https://internalchange.com/wp-content/uploads/IWCO-063.pdf

    Here’s a brief summary, which doesn’t credit the creators by name:

    http://infinityconcepts.net/2012/02/team-dynamics-the-4-positions-that-create-an-effective-team/

    Fahden once wrote a book, then rented a storefront for a bookstore that carried only that book. It made News of the Weird. Now he’s associated with Mike Veeck, “the man who killed disco”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I would describe the old Chinese situation the reverse way: they had gunpowder but lacked the chemistry that underlies it. They could sail the sea, but lacked the larger geo- and cosmology for true global navigation. And lacking the principles of modern physics, they weren't going to progress beyond sail.

    So the old Chinese case is that they had a few random applications (paper, gunpowder, sailing), but lacked the source code (periodic table, physics, astronomy).

    The irony is that today the West is submerging itself in the superstitious Cult of Current Yearism, which denies science, opposes truth, hates beauty and confounds goodness. Meanwhile the Chinese have taken up our neglected source code of success and are going from strength to strength even as we deny our former and their current accomplishments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Johnnymenomonic
    >Saini points out, anthropological research has revealed that hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian



    Except they weren't, and many people even on the left are starting to realize that.

    http://quillette.com/2017/12/16/romanticizing-hunter-gatherer/

    >Even in circumstances where hunters give away more of their meat than they end up receiving from others in return, good hunters tend to be accorded high status, and rewarded with more opportunities to reproduce everywhere the relationship has been studied.13 When taking into account ‘embodied wealth’ such as hunting returns and reproductive success, and ‘relational wealth’ such as the number of exchange and sharing partners, Alden Smith et al. calculated that hunter-gatherer societies have a ‘moderate’ level of inequality, roughly comparable to that of Denmark.14 While this is less inequality than most agricultural societies and nation states, it’s not quite the level of egalitarianism many have come to expect from hunter-gatherers.


    >In the realm of reproductive success, hunter-gatherers are even more unequal than modern industrialized populations, exhibiting what is called “greater reproductive skew,” with males having significantly larger variance in reproductive success than females.15 Among the Ache of Paraguay, males have over 4 times the variance in reproductive success that females do, which is one of the highest ratios recorded. This means some males end up having lots of children with different women, while a significant number of males end up having none at all. This is reflected in the fact that polygynous marriage is practiced in the majority of hunter-gatherer societies for which there are data. Across these societies, the average age at marriage for females is only 13.8, while the average age at marriage for males is 20.7.16 Rather than defending what would be considered child marriage in contemporary Western societies, anthropologists often omit mentioning this information entirely.

    >According to anthropologists Douglas Fry and Geneviève Souillac, “Nomadic forager data suggest a human predilection toward equality, including gender equality, in ethos and action,”17 yet the available data do not support this notion in the slightest. On the contrary, in 1978 Robert Tonkinson had found that, among the Mardu hunter-gatherers of Australia, “Mardu men accord themselves greater ritual responsibility, higher status, more power, and more rights than women. It is a society in which male interests generally prevail when rights are contested and in the centrally important arena of religious life.”18 Among the Hiwi of Venezuela, and the Ache of Paraguay, female infants and children are disproportionately victims of infanticide, neglect, and child homicide.19 20 It is in fact quite common in hunter-gatherer societies that are at war, or heavily reliant on male hunting for subsistence, for female infants to be habitually neglected or killed.21 22 In 1931, Knud Rasmussen recorded that, among the Netsilik Inuit, who were almost wholly reliant on male hunting and fishing, out of 96 births from parents he interviewed, 38 girls were killed (nearly 40 percent).23

    There was no equality in the hunter gatherer community aside from the inevitable equality in poverty.

    James Suzman, who is the author of ‘Affluence without Abundance’, a book that gets mentioned in dispatches in this current debate has some interesting relatives.

    His brother Mark is President and Chief Strategy Officer for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Leadership/Executive-Leadership-Team/Mark-Suzman

    And their aunt (or something like that) was Helen Suzman, who famously campaigned against Apartheid in South Africa for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Suzman

    Suffice to say neither brother lives in South Africa now. God forbid that one might think that some people just sort of drop into places, mess them up a bit, then move on elsewhere to repeat the formula.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @syonredux

    …while “alt-right pundit” Steve Sailer is an ignorant hick who is horribly sexist. Besides being horribly racist, of course.

    And horribly tall. Put him next to Robert Reich.
     
    We must all be on guard against heightism. Absorb the wisdom of Ziad Ahmed :

    Things aren’t much better for the girls. Ahmed said he recently spoke to a girl at his school who said she wanted a boyfriend who was at least six feet tall.

    ▲▼He asked her why, and she said she wanted to be able to look up into his eyes. Which sounds sweet on the surface, but the conversation led Ahmed to believe that the girl basically wanted to be looked down on. Made smaller. Made the one to be protected, not be herself. In other words, she willingly is looking to be, in some measure, less than her (eventual) boyfriend, said Ahmed.


    He added that the overall point he is trying to make is that males and females buy into prescribed roles that make it hard for anyone who doesn’t fit into them to feel comfortable about who they are. And that we’re defining ourselves in all the wrong ways.

    “People are so much more multi-dimensional than one thing,” he said. “It’s OK to be whoever you are.” …
     
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/i-for-one-welcome-our-new-shamelessly-black-exploiting-white-hating-tiger-child-overlords/?highlight=Ahmed

    You see, women who desire tall men are simply accepting sexual stereotypes about female inferiority. A WOKE woman, in contrast, would rather tower over her boyfriend....

    Mindy Kaling said that a very Nordic male co-star brought out the feeling common in women (though not her) that they want men who make them feel “tiny”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @AndrewR
    "forced to share"

    Is it inconceivable to you that a skilled hunter would be more than happy to share with his tribe?

    If you’re killing large game, outside of very cold climates there’s no downside to sharing, as the meat will go off before a single person or family can eat it all. And the upside is the social status of being the guy who fed the group, plus reasonable expectation of reciprocation.

    (I imagine a lot of large game hunting would be done by a male group anyway, but there’ll always be the one or two guys who get in harms way to do the initial wounding, and the place of danger would be the place of honour).

    Read More
    • Replies: @prosa123
    "If you’re killing large game, outside of very cold climates there’s no downside to sharing, as the meat will go off before a single person or family can eat it all. "

    As happened to Christopher "Into the Wild" McCandless. He shot a moose while living an isolated life in Alaska, but it wasn't cold out at the time and almost all of the meat rotted. He became severely malnourished, which was at least a major factor in his death.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. It is deeply indicative of the benighted nature of this whole discussion that Horgan is able to simply toss out statements like “in light of the fact that we are the products of natural selection,” and this premise is accepted without further ado by friend and foe alike as the self-evident (and, since it is never even examined, entirely superfluous) antecedent material by which the debate is framed. Until this ridiculous situation is amended, there will never be any traction gained by anyone arguing for any sort of “realism” in those studies concerned with the nature of man.

    For evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, and all such cognate derivative disciplines are, like all things Darwinian, completely incapable of furnishing any proof as to the truth or falsity of statements concerning human nature, one way or the other. “Proof” for the Darwinian consists in so arranging a pictorial presentation of a selection of quite varied and discrepant facts so as to conform to his mechanical-causal scheme for explaining all aspects of living reality. Darwinism is therefore a method and not a result. The Darwinist reads his theory into nature, not out of it. Anything whatsoever can be “Darwinized,”meaning that it can be explained as the outcome of a selection process perfectly in accordance with the scheme; and the truth of this explanation is thereafter accepted due solely to the unquestioned faith placed in the method, without regard to the qualitative nature of the assertion or the particular facts presented. Therefore any debate about human nature which accepts Darwinism as a premise is incapable of resolution and descends ultimately into the mere clash of opinions and preferences, in which one’s involved personal inclinations play the dominant role.

    Confusingly, the “race realists” of today are content to be but one more insignificant voice in this meaningless debate, when the logical implications of their own position, as well as their only hopes of political success, necessitate them rising out of it. In truth, anyone calling himself a race realist ought to be the very last person touting the merits of Darwinism, but this has been completely misunderstood due to the appalling lack of intellectual rigor that prevails among them. Moreover, one gets the impression that the Darwinism of the race realists is clung to with such tenacity simply because they believe it to justify their realist beliefs, that Darwinism in itself is neither understood nor appreciated in its depths, and that there would be little reason for mentioning it at all were it not for the imprimatur it seemed to confer upon their political leanings.

    But the implication that Darwinism actually establishes race realism is entirely backwards. If evolutionary theory were actually true, then there would be no “race” whatsoever to speak of, and consequently “race realism” would be an oxymoron and the very groundless conceit of bigots that the Left accuses it of being. On the Darwinian reading there are nothing but transitional forms, a swarming mass of incoherent and undifferentiated life; no race, no definition, no species. The unquestioned sexual compatibility among the various human races renders the whole idea absurd even on an evolutionary model; and the oft-cited analogy between human races and differing breeds of dog, horse, or other domesticated animals would tend to support the notion that acculturation and training were more important in human development than mere differences in ancestry as such. Indeed, the fact that HBDers must ultimately rest their case on the vanishingly small dissimilarities in the statistical distribution of DNA sequences among races is an embarrassment and a confession of the weakness of their entire position.

    Among human beings, race is primarily an affiliation of the affections and the understanding and not of the body. The “real” differences between the races, therefore, must be looked for in the will rather than the biology of the individual. The will, being an aspect of the soul (i.e. the substantial form) is the prime phenomenon, the essence of the man. Far from being the ephemeral will-o-the-wisp, the coincidental conglomeration of social patterns and “memes” that modern psychology holds it to be, it is precisely here that all real and essential human differences reside. Where this not the case, none of the other differences would even register as anything more than incidental, and having white or black skin would be of no more importance than having blond or brown hair. But foreignness, i.e. the felt incompatibility between two natures, is a decisive and inwardly felt experience in every life. The racelessness favored by the cosmopolitans has nothing to do with a blending of skin tones, but is rather the championing of the undifferentiated and completely pliable will of a rootless urban humanity, for which the possibility of consensus exists only for practical questions of the grossest kind, and which is ironically the mirror image of the very Darwinism embraced by the race realists.

    If you consider yourself a realist and also a Darwinist, then you are ignorant. That is not to say that you are not intelligent; you may be very bright, well read, have a high IQ, and all that. But you have clearly not worked through the cultural, biological, physical, and metaphysical implications of your beliefs with any sort of consistency. Only the real essentialism of Aristotle, deepened by 2,000 years of Western Christianity, can provide the basis for articulating real racial differences that do not result in absurdities. If we do not begin with a genuine understanding of reality, there is no hope.

    Read More
    • Agree: AaronB
    • Disagree: MEH 0910
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Excellent comment, as always.

    You're on enemy ground ideologically and you probably won't reach too many here - facts and logic won't sway them.

    But the message will reach those capable of receiving it.
    , @AndrewR
    It's only the first of January but your comment very well may end up winning the award for most pretentious comment of 2018.
    , @The True and Original David
    The mental is based on the physical, not vice-versa.

    This is called "materialism" by adepts of idealist philosophy, but actual materialism dispenses with the assumption of consciousness altogether, while the actual position of Darwinists and such is that matter and consciousness both exist (no monism) but consciousness is ontologically subordinate to matter (fundamentaly harmoniously; thus no dualism). (What would one be conscious of, prior to there being nothing to be conscious of save the workings of consciousness itself, which on this theory has no object? Matter must come first.)

    Idealism is secularized magic: some big spirit in the sky thought everything up. The alternative is not the other prevalent form of secularized magic known as the Big Bang, rather, it's the recognition that nothing but the forms of matter are subject to creation and destruction; matter itself exists eternally. The assumption that it must come into being (ex Deus or ex nihilo) is primitive thinking. Existence itself has no beginning and no end; and matter is subordinate to consciousness else there is nothing on which the project of being conscious can begin.

    >>> "Indeed, the fact that HBDers must ultimately rest their case on the vanishingly small dissimilarities in the statistical distribution of DNA sequences among races is an embarrassment and a confession of the weakness of their entire position."

    Small differences in molecular structure mark off various elements. Wouldn't you prefer sugar in your tea to plutonium?

    But it's no use discussing scientific matters with an idealist--someone who starts from the premise of "Will" (whim) as the fundamental stratum of reality. It's like trying to argue with a Sunni Muslim about jihad. The comeback is always, "Allah (the Cosmic Consciousness) WILLS it so."

    , @anonguy
    Best commenter on this blog, you guys should listen to him.
    , @MEH 0910

    and the oft-cited analogy between human races and differing breeds of dog, horse, or other domesticated animals would tend to support the notion that acculturation and training were more important in human development than mere differences in ancestry as such.
     
    You think you can acculturate and train a dumb Afghan Hound to do the job of an intelligent Border Collie? You think that Bloodhounds tracking ability is just a matter of acculturation and training, and breeding ancestry is insignificant?
    , @vinteuil
    ID, I yield to nobody in my admiration for Aristotle & St Thomas - but let's be serious, here.

    I'm wondering at just exactly what point you think Darwinism/Evo-psych goes off the rails. Is it at the very beginning? Do you reject the very possibility that purely physical causes can have profound psychological/behavioral effects?

    For example, do you deny that drinking three gin & tonics in quick succession can drastically alter one's degree of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, &c?

    Serious question.
    , @Faraday's Bobcat

    ...“Proof” for the Darwinian consists in so arranging a pictorial presentation of a selection of quite varied and discrepant facts so as to conform to his mechanical-causal scheme for explaining all aspects of living reality. Darwinism is therefore a method and not a result. The Darwinist reads his theory into nature, not out of it...
     
    This is a cloud of erudite fog.

    Do you contend that natural selection and differential survival have no explanatory power? And if not, which theory does?
    , @AnotherDad

    “in light of the fact that we are the products of natural selection,”
     
    I'm under no illusion that AnotherMom would have taken a shine to me if i was ugly and/or stupid. (Nor if someone taller, more handsome and smarter had taken a shine to her first.) Ergo AnotherChildren 1,2 and 3 are products of "natural selection". Plenty of things exist whether you believe in them or not.

    You might not be interested in "selection", but "selection" is interested in you.
    , @Eric Novak
    Tiny Duck is pretending to be Mr. Horgan pretending to be someone else here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Anonymous

    But I fear that biological theorizing about these tendencies, in our still-sexist world, does more harm than good. It empowers the social injustice warriors, and that is the last thing our world needs.
     
    How does one even write such stuff? Is he trying to sabotage his own side?

    Horgan has said, on more than one occasion, that the whole field of inquiry of race/IQ (or whatever other traits) should be taboo in science. Not because it is invalid, but because “nothing good can come of it” or something to that effect. So, yeah, he is practically conceding the point, but still saying it should be forbidden to talk about. He has clearly expanded his taboo list to include sex differences, too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Did women who marched on Washington on January 21, 2017, actually have an innate desire to be dominated by men?

    I get that this is just a disingenuous, sort of smartass comment, but I would note that not one of those women seemed to mind when they were being dominated by a smooth-talking black guy a few years ago. They seemed pretty excited about it, in fact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @sabril
    There is an idea in the PUA community that girls will frequently act out subconsciously hoping that men will put them in their place. A "shit test." It's an idea that deserves serious attention.
    , @Pericles
    Perhaps the marchers wished the President to notice that they too had pussies which had not, so far, been grabbed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Anonymouse
    I'm reading James C. Scott's Against the Grain. Before the advent of sedentism that led to political states, all were hunters-gatherers. In the new arrangement, women played a subservient role in households. Households were taxed by the rulers of the state. As for the life-style of hunters-gatherers, the life-styles of surviving hunter-gatherer tribes are likely a token: a strict division of activities according to that tribe's tradition. The hunters-gatherers apparently bartered with sedentists with captured slaves for agricultural produce. Sedentist life led to shortened stature and other health deficits due to a monoculture diet of grain and epidemic disease. Oddly, sedentists are much more fertile than hunter-gatherers. Scott's explicative analogy is that homo sapiens is as much a domesticated species as the animals and plants they domesticate, both sharing early menses and extended fertility.

    “Oddly, sedentists are much more fertile than hunter-gatherers.” It’s hard to move around following game if you are impeded by lots of children. In particular a woman carrying a baby and holding the hand of a toddler is fully occupied.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Hmm. I started out reading Horgan’s article, then I followed a few links, and somehow I ended up here. I’m sure there is something to learn there about female sexuality, but I’m not sure what…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Man, jb, I got suckered into clicking on that one ... I didn't read it thoroughly enough to tell if that was all in jest. Sex with dinosaurs sells, I guess, but notice there were no books featuring the brontosauruses - you've heard it before, I'm sure, but women HATE, HATE, HATE herbivores!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. I’ll leave it here:

    “Between 2014 and 2016, the number of white homicide victims increased by 22 percent—not too far off the 29 percent increase in black victims.”

    https://thecrimereport.org/2017/12/07/the-rise-of-white-homicide-what-analysts-have-missed/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. @reiner Tor
    It's conceivable, but what I read, there were mechanisms in place to essentially force it. If a hunter didn't share enough, there started gossip about him, but the pressure could grow until eventually a hunter considered to be selfish might be chased away from the group or even killed. (The latter I think if there were other problems with him as well.) Another point is that there is only so much one hunter can eat. He has to share anyway, or else the meat will rot.

    And then there's the problem which some commenters have already mentioned, that the hunter-gatherer societies anthropologists managed to study were all small and impoverished. Larger scale, richer hunter-gatherer societies have existed in historical times (I think some Amerind tribes or tribal confederations qualified, the richest of which lived in California, but I think the Iroquois were also mostly hunter-gatherers), and they had more stratification.

    In any event, we're now talking about economic equality of families. The Pseudoscientific American says there was "gender equality", which is nonsense anyway.

    The most skilled hunters shared because they understood that their sharing would buy them special social status and access to the best females in the tribe. I

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @The Alarmist
    How does one get 'biological inferiority' out of gender-specific specialisation?

    The more interesting study of last year's female marchers is not whether they wanted to be dominated by males, rather did the image of these women running around in their clever hats provoke any desire in males to dominate them in physical ways.

    Well did it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Almost Missouri
    Hey, nothing against refining, extending and applying. Everyone does what they can, you know.

    But the refiners, extenders and appliers need something to refine, extend and apply. If there are no new revelations, the refiners, extenders and appliers run out of work eventually.

    Fifty-six years ago, Watson and Crick got the Nobel Prize for discovering DNA, work they did in the prior decade. This was the last time the Nobels recognized a genuine breakthrough. Since then, it's been mostly vaguer, esoteric stuff.

    That science has degenerated to mostly just refinements, extensions and applications wouldn't be terrible by itself, but this has apparently accompanied a degeneration in general understanding of what science is. When supposedly serious science journals like Scientific American are waving off actual science and promoting Current Yearism, I have to conclude that the rot is deep and there are ill consequences yet to come.

    “Watson and Crick got the Nobel Prize for discovering DNA”: not exactly. They deduced its structure, which immediately implied its working principle. Knowledge of its existence was old hat.

    I’m trying to think of anything else post (say) 1950/60 that was a big deal. Integrated circuits? Plate Tectonics as an explanation for how Continental Drift happens was an advance, though you might say it was a minor one since everybody with anything between the ears had already accepted that Continental Drift happened. Perhaps a bit harsh.

    How about the working of the immune system? Was that solved before 1950? Anything profound in molecular biology and genetics? I know of a chap who gave up Theoretical Chemistry in the 6os because “it has all been done”. Come to think of it, there has been a dramatic advance in the understanding of the life of trees in woodland. Bolt-from-the-blue advance, but in a deeply unfashionable field of course; it has none of the glitz that theoretical physicists used to claim for themselves. I suppose the antics of “environmentalists” have given serious ecological science a bad name. Similarly the no-account field of archaeology has been hugely advanced by the combination of pollen studies, carbon dating, dendrochronology, plus other dating methods. Has the advance finished though?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    even the new hotness, "deep learning neural networks," was basically elucidated in the 40s (with the seminal backpropagation learning algorithm developed in the mid-70s). everything old is new again!
    , @Anonymous

    I’m trying to think of anything else post (say) 1950/60 that was a big deal ... How about the working of the immune system? Was that solved before 1950? Anything profound in molecular biology and genetics?

     

    Figuring out (well, mostly) the immune system is obviously a huge deal and was the result of long line of incremental advances during, roughly, 1975-2005. It is now starting to pay off: monoclonal antibodies as drugs, CAR-T therapy for cancer.

    Other pretty profound things that we now mostly understand:
    - Molecular mechanisms of cell division/cell cycle
    - Molecular mechanisms underlying all kinds of sensation
    - Molecular mechanisms of motility
    - Molecular mechanisms of information flow in the entire chain of DNA-to-DNA-to-RNA-to-protein
    - Cell senescence
    - Molecular mechanisms of cell to cell communication

    These are all things that define how living things live. Obviously the structure of DNA was important but thinking that nothing of similar importance happened after that seems pretty ignorant. E.g., it took a whole decade after the 1953 to figure out the genetic code.

    Then there are enabler things that are/will be as important as transistors turned out to be: PCR, nucleic acid sequencing, recombinant nucleic acids technologies.

    Consciousness and are big deals that have yet to be cracked.

    , @ben tillman
    David Sloan Wilson solved moral philosophy.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Yes, "discovering" was a simplification. I try to keep blog comments simple.

    Integrated circuits are a refinement of transistors ... 1947.

    I guess plate tectonics became generally accepted after 1950, but the theory was half a century older. Also, I'm not sure how weighty it is in terms of real life consequences. Maybe it led to some improvements in geological prospecting and surveying, e.g., for petroleum?

    I think the immune system, like most biology, is still quite imperfectly understood, though there have been undeniable strides.

    Kind of agree with your chemistry friend.

    Not sure what the eco-tree thing you're referring to is.

    Yeah, ... archeology ... part art part science. There've been some improvements. Dunno how much that matters in the big picture.

    How about lasers? Patented 1958. Nobel Prize 1964. That's about the latest real breakthrough for anything significant I can come up with.

    Maybe there is some materials science event I don't know of?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Almost Missouri
    Ironically, John Horgan's most famous work is The End of Science, which might have more accurately been titled, The Exhaustion of Science, wherein he argues, plausibly, that scientists today are mere refiners, extenders and applyers of the great revelations of past eras' scientists. I happen to think this is correct.

    The actual End of Science as a method of rational inquiry, on the other hand, is what he himself is now accomplishing.


    "biological theorizing ... does more harm than good."
     
    If you say so, Pope Horgan of the New Cathedral...

    "Scientific American 'has been adamantly PC since before PC was a thing,' which as someone who began writing for the magazine in 1986 I take as a compliment. "
     
    Yeah, this guy is a political officer first, scientist sec--... well actually he's not scientific at all. He just borrows the nomenclature of science to promote the Cult of the Current Year.

    John Horgan is the wannabe Pope Urban of the 21st century.

    Ironically, John Horgan’s most famous work is The End of Science, which might have more accurately been titled, The Exhaustion of Science, wherein he argues, plausibly, that scientists today are mere refiners, extenders and applyers of the great revelations of past eras’ scientists.

    This can’t have been a novel observation. Or was it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    It wasn't novel inasmuch as it is a semi-obvious fact, so that even I could observe it, though I never published anything about it.

    I don't know if anyone else has published the same observation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. “. . . which seeks to understand our behavior in light of the fact that we are products of natural selection, can give us deep insights into ourselves. In practice, the field often reinforces insidious prejudices.”

    So, applying a theory that was developed based on evidence is “prejudice”? Like it would be a practice of prejudice to predict how objects will behave based on the theory of gravity?

    Isn’t this the opposite of the scientific method? Steve’s title for this post is perfect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. @International Jew
    They were "egalitarian" in the economic dimension, in the sense that there were no Bill Gateses; there can't be, where nothing is accumulated (there's nothing to accumulate) and everyone works for himself.

    How do you account then for the reproductive skew?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Jack D
    It's a two-way street - societies that are extremely poor are egalitarian are and societies that are egalitarian end up being extremely poor. Everyone has plenty of nothing.

    Countries in Northern Europe are widely regarded as the most egalitarian in the world, and also as the wealthiest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @TheJester
    So, it appears that our hunter-gatherer forebearers were egalitarian ... I mean communalists ... I mean communists.

    Therefore, communism and other leftist social and economic systems are grounded in human nature. This is science, you know. End of discussion.

    However, like iSteve, one question plagues me. If they were "hunter-gatherer" societies, how did they decide who "hunted" and who "gathered"? I get it, the men stayed behind to forage for berries and care for infants while the women traipsed into the wild to fend off hostile tribes and hunt large game in order to celebrate their newfound equality and provide a positive example for all future generations of women. (But who nursed the infants? A malformed and malicious question ... let's not go there!)

    Therefore, feminism is also grounded in human nature. This is science, you know. End of discussion.

    I like this new "science". It is so easy to digest. One could memorize all of the first principles and plow through the entire pedagogy in five minutes. All one needs to know is what is politically correct and what isn't. If a scientific thesis supports what is politically correct, it is "fact-based". If it is not politically correct, it is a "hate fact". Hateful facts are not allowed because they are evil ... in fact, they are crimes.

    Did I get this right? Do they print this stuff in Scientific American?

    There was a study done a few years ago that claimed being in favor of markets/capitalism was a sign of evolutionary advancement.

    Inability to get beyond familial or community (communism) economics was a sign the person hasn’t evolved enough to understand the concepts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. According to the FBI’s expanded homicide data from 2014, police were not able to identify key traits of the offender, or even describe the relationship between the victim and the killer, in 40 percent of homicides where the victim was black. That’s nearly double the rate for white victims, which stands at around 22 percent:

    https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/what-clearance-rates-say-about-disparities-crime-and-prosecution-0

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. @Anonymous

    But I fear that biological theorizing about these tendencies, in our still-sexist world, does more harm than good. It empowers the social injustice warriors, and that is the last thing our world needs.
     
    How does one even write such stuff? Is he trying to sabotage his own side?

    But I fear that biological theorizing about these tendencies, in our still-sexist world, does more harm than good.

    Yeah, if scientists start theorizing about things, who knows where it might lead? I’m agin’ it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @syonredux

    …hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian.

    Pirate ships, even more. Is either the kind of society we want to encourage?
     
    SJWs are very pro-Pirate these days. Cf, for example, the work of Marcus Rediker:

    By expropriating a merchant ship (after a mutiny or a capture), pirates seized the means of maritime production and declared it to be the common property of those who did its work. They abolished the wage relation central to the process of capitalist accumulation. So rather than work for wages using the tools and machine (the ship) owned by a merchant capitalist, pirates commanded the ship as their own property and shared equally in the risks of their common adventure.
     
    (Villains of All Nations: Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age, p. 70.

    And then there's the TV series Black Sails, which centered around the idea that pirates were LGBTQ fighters against colonialism....

    So rather than work for wages using the tools and machine (the ship) owned by a merchant capitalist, pirates commanded the ship as their own property and shared equally in the risks of their common adventure.

    Sounds like a model socialist society. Marcus Rediker seems to think so. I think I read or heard once that the average 18th century carribean pirates career lasted something like 18 months, before he starved to death, or starved to the point of succumbing to disease or dying in a desperate attack to procure some food. Yay socialism!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Almost Missouri
    Ironically, John Horgan's most famous work is The End of Science, which might have more accurately been titled, The Exhaustion of Science, wherein he argues, plausibly, that scientists today are mere refiners, extenders and applyers of the great revelations of past eras' scientists. I happen to think this is correct.

    The actual End of Science as a method of rational inquiry, on the other hand, is what he himself is now accomplishing.


    "biological theorizing ... does more harm than good."
     
    If you say so, Pope Horgan of the New Cathedral...

    "Scientific American 'has been adamantly PC since before PC was a thing,' which as someone who began writing for the magazine in 1986 I take as a compliment. "
     
    Yeah, this guy is a political officer first, scientist sec--... well actually he's not scientific at all. He just borrows the nomenclature of science to promote the Cult of the Current Year.

    John Horgan is the wannabe Pope Urban of the 21st century.

    Remember, John Horgan knows more than you do.

    He has a masters degree……………………..innnn journalism!

    (Anybody get that reference?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I admit I don't get the reference.

    A prior iSteve post?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. The kind of PC orthodoxy that John Horgan displays is not now only limited to the soft edges of scientific publication, like Unscientific American. The American Institute of Physics / American Physical Society (AIP/APS) have bought into it and are now down with the revolution. The monthly APS Newsletter APS News and the magazine Physics Today, published by AIP, are increasingly emphasizing social topics: bemoaning the lack of women in physics, minorities in physics, the LGBTQWERTY community in physics, etc. Take these recent examples:

    Optimism Abounds at Conference on Women in Physics

    Medical Physicist Studies Transgender Athletes

    And, they are completely down with open borders too. Anything that might stand in the way of professors getting their cheap indentured servants (i.e., grad students) is anathema to Big Physics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  82. Nothing more frustrating than trying to study a new field (to myself) such as archaeology, and finding even the intro Great Courses type stuff is so corrupted by Marxism that the field can’t see straight.

    Listen to archaeologists and you hear that h-g were more egalitarian because the past was Eden before the State came along. They know it was more egalitarian because pre-state, they didn’t find evidence of massive wealth disparity in the detritus they uncover at a given site. Qed.

    And h-g societies don’t have evidence of a state because all evidence is interpreted to show how egalitarian they are. Then they mention early archaeology sites have places where grain was stored–too much for an individual family. But that must not have been an example of a state because they were communal cultures, and hence storing things communally.

    What hogwash!

    My neighborhood suburban subdevelopment has no friggen wealth disparity. Proof of what, exactly? And there no evidence of the state here except in my kids’ piggy banks, which are obviously evidence of a suidael religious cult. In fact, I’m pretty sure an archaeologist would look at our trash and decide we live in a country run by the fertility god-dictator named Amazon, as symbolized by the phallic symbols on his boxes, who maintained centralized control of the means of all production.

    The best archaeologist of the late bronze age is a classics professor named Eric Cline who is happy to make fun of archaeology. Even author David Macaulay made terrific fun of them in Motel of the Mysteries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    In fact, I’m pretty sure an archaeologist would look at our trash and decide we live in a country run by the fertility god-dictator named Amazon, as symbolized by the phallic symbols on his boxes, who maintained centralized control of the means of all production.
     
    Funny stuff (whole comment, I mean), Alice. People were saying that what that Amazon appendage "swoosh" looked like as soon as it came out in 2000 or so, I recall.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Do Women Want to Be Oppressed?

    Anecdotally, definitely. Maybe it’s just the type I’m attracted to, but a majority of the girlfriends I have had, despite some being dramatically different in outward personality, wanted to be dominated by men sexually. As one said to me once:

    Her (approvingly): “When you pin my wrists down like that it makes me feel like you can do anything you want to me.”

    Me: “Well, I can, can’t I?”

    Her (eyes wide): “…Yes.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. Hunter-gatherers have little inequality, but also little wealth. Capital is not acquired because it would be expropriated by the group. Their key ethic is not so much equality as envy, which is much more destructive than greed, because it prevents the accumulation of capital needed to allow what most people think is the essence of civilization. That is, without sufficient capital, you don’t have sufficient productivity, so all of one’s time is spent hunting and gathering, leaving little time for art, literature, science, philosophy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB

    That is, without sufficient capital, you don’t have sufficient productivity, so all of one’s time is spent hunting and gathering, leaving little time for art, literature, science, philosophy.
     
    Actually eric, hunter-gatherer societies are the original leisure society. They spend about three hours a day on acquiring food and the rest in play and relaxation.

    Most literature, science, and art are attempts to heal the psychic wound of living in civilization. They would serve no purpose in a society without that wound.
    , @The True and Original David
    The go-to reference for this is Schoeck's classic _Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour_.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Schoeck

    , @Neil Templeton
    Hunter gatherers have little wealth not because they are envious, but rather that the acquisition of wealth is constrained by the availability of game and berries in the short term, and by technology in the long term. Can you show that social approbation or disapprobation of envy and greed are causal elements of the change in social order from hunter gathering to agriculture to modern industry?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Possibly Horgan has confused the within-sex egalitarianism found among foragers with between-sex egalitarianism. However, since between-sex relations are what he’s writing of here, it was more likely deliberate conflation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. Horgan doesn’t know what he’s talking about — if one looks at studies of hunter-gatherers, there is a clear inequality in which sex suffers FAR greater probability of fatalities/injuries by things like snake-bite, jaguar/leopard attack etc etc

    It ain’t the women-folk.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  87. @zanon
    I'd recommend "The Old Way" by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas.

    She lived with the Bushmen of the Kalahari, and writes about how they hunted and gathered. Both women and men did both, but only men hunted *big* game (deer, etc.) which was special because it was shared with the tribe.

    Everyone, included children, hunted "slow" game (snakes, small rodents etc.) which did not need to be shared.

    Past hunts was the major topic of campfire conversation for men.

    Past hunts was the major topic of campfire conversation for men.

    Some things never change.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @syonredux

    …while “alt-right pundit” Steve Sailer is an ignorant hick who is horribly sexist. Besides being horribly racist, of course.

    And horribly tall. Put him next to Robert Reich.
     
    We must all be on guard against heightism. Absorb the wisdom of Ziad Ahmed :

    Things aren’t much better for the girls. Ahmed said he recently spoke to a girl at his school who said she wanted a boyfriend who was at least six feet tall.

    ▲▼He asked her why, and she said she wanted to be able to look up into his eyes. Which sounds sweet on the surface, but the conversation led Ahmed to believe that the girl basically wanted to be looked down on. Made smaller. Made the one to be protected, not be herself. In other words, she willingly is looking to be, in some measure, less than her (eventual) boyfriend, said Ahmed.


    He added that the overall point he is trying to make is that males and females buy into prescribed roles that make it hard for anyone who doesn’t fit into them to feel comfortable about who they are. And that we’re defining ourselves in all the wrong ways.

    “People are so much more multi-dimensional than one thing,” he said. “It’s OK to be whoever you are.” …
     
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/i-for-one-welcome-our-new-shamelessly-black-exploiting-white-hating-tiger-child-overlords/?highlight=Ahmed

    You see, women who desire tall men are simply accepting sexual stereotypes about female inferiority. A WOKE woman, in contrast, would rather tower over her boyfriend....

    “You see, women who desire tall men are simply accepting sexual stereotypes about female inferiority. ”

    Or she might think tall men are more Alpha. Or, as I suspect is usually the case, she likes a man who happens to be tall.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    "If he's tall, it might make me appear less obscenely fat. Mind you, he'd have to be really, really tall, and kinda broad-shouldered, for that to work ..."
    "Mmmm. Then I'd be Noticed. By, like, princes, and plutocrats, and apex warriors and such."
    Sexual selection, in the raw.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @eric
    Hunter-gatherers have little inequality, but also little wealth. Capital is not acquired because it would be expropriated by the group. Their key ethic is not so much equality as envy, which is much more destructive than greed, because it prevents the accumulation of capital needed to allow what most people think is the essence of civilization. That is, without sufficient capital, you don't have sufficient productivity, so all of one's time is spent hunting and gathering, leaving little time for art, literature, science, philosophy.

    That is, without sufficient capital, you don’t have sufficient productivity, so all of one’s time is spent hunting and gathering, leaving little time for art, literature, science, philosophy.

    Actually eric, hunter-gatherer societies are the original leisure society. They spend about three hours a day on acquiring food and the rest in play and relaxation.

    Most literature, science, and art are attempts to heal the psychic wound of living in civilization. They would serve no purpose in a society without that wound.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Actually eric, hunter-gatherer societies are the original leisure society. They spend about three hours a day on acquiring food and the rest in play and relaxation.

    I think you mean "The rest drinking and fighting for the men, and sitting around chattering endlessly about nothing for the women.".

    More or less what you see in any large group of unemployed people, really. Sounds absolutely maddening.

    Most literature, science, and art are attempts to heal the psychic wound of living in civilization. They would serve no purpose in a society without that wound.

    You ever have a toothache and couldn't get to a dentist for some reason? That was the state about a fourth of the population was living in all the time prior to modern medicine. I would consider that a purpose for science to serve.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Johnnymenomonic
    >Saini points out, anthropological research has revealed that hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian



    Except they weren't, and many people even on the left are starting to realize that.

    http://quillette.com/2017/12/16/romanticizing-hunter-gatherer/

    >Even in circumstances where hunters give away more of their meat than they end up receiving from others in return, good hunters tend to be accorded high status, and rewarded with more opportunities to reproduce everywhere the relationship has been studied.13 When taking into account ‘embodied wealth’ such as hunting returns and reproductive success, and ‘relational wealth’ such as the number of exchange and sharing partners, Alden Smith et al. calculated that hunter-gatherer societies have a ‘moderate’ level of inequality, roughly comparable to that of Denmark.14 While this is less inequality than most agricultural societies and nation states, it’s not quite the level of egalitarianism many have come to expect from hunter-gatherers.


    >In the realm of reproductive success, hunter-gatherers are even more unequal than modern industrialized populations, exhibiting what is called “greater reproductive skew,” with males having significantly larger variance in reproductive success than females.15 Among the Ache of Paraguay, males have over 4 times the variance in reproductive success that females do, which is one of the highest ratios recorded. This means some males end up having lots of children with different women, while a significant number of males end up having none at all. This is reflected in the fact that polygynous marriage is practiced in the majority of hunter-gatherer societies for which there are data. Across these societies, the average age at marriage for females is only 13.8, while the average age at marriage for males is 20.7.16 Rather than defending what would be considered child marriage in contemporary Western societies, anthropologists often omit mentioning this information entirely.

    >According to anthropologists Douglas Fry and Geneviève Souillac, “Nomadic forager data suggest a human predilection toward equality, including gender equality, in ethos and action,”17 yet the available data do not support this notion in the slightest. On the contrary, in 1978 Robert Tonkinson had found that, among the Mardu hunter-gatherers of Australia, “Mardu men accord themselves greater ritual responsibility, higher status, more power, and more rights than women. It is a society in which male interests generally prevail when rights are contested and in the centrally important arena of religious life.”18 Among the Hiwi of Venezuela, and the Ache of Paraguay, female infants and children are disproportionately victims of infanticide, neglect, and child homicide.19 20 It is in fact quite common in hunter-gatherer societies that are at war, or heavily reliant on male hunting for subsistence, for female infants to be habitually neglected or killed.21 22 In 1931, Knud Rasmussen recorded that, among the Netsilik Inuit, who were almost wholly reliant on male hunting and fishing, out of 96 births from parents he interviewed, 38 girls were killed (nearly 40 percent).23

    There was no equality in the hunter gatherer community aside from the inevitable equality in poverty.

    Thanks for this. Should’ve known that I couldn’t trust an “anthropologist” to get the basic facts right.

    “Across these societies, the average age at marriage for females is only 13.8…”

    Wow – that’s the average?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    So Roy Moore was selecting females much older than average for mating?
    , @ben tillman

    Thanks for this. Should’ve known that I couldn’t trust an “anthropologist” to get the basic facts right.

    “Across these societies, the average age at marriage for females is only 13.8…”

    Wow – that’s the average?
     
    Why would it be higher?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @The Alarmist
    How does one get 'biological inferiority' out of gender-specific specialisation?

    The more interesting study of last year's female marchers is not whether they wanted to be dominated by males, rather did the image of these women running around in their clever hats provoke any desire in males to dominate them in physical ways.

    “rather did the image of these women running around in their clever hats provoke any desire in males to dominate them in physical ways.”

    Pass. I’ll take the farmer’s daughter behind door #3

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    She was only a farmer's daughter, but all the horsemen knew her.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @reiner Tor
    It's conceivable, but what I read, there were mechanisms in place to essentially force it. If a hunter didn't share enough, there started gossip about him, but the pressure could grow until eventually a hunter considered to be selfish might be chased away from the group or even killed. (The latter I think if there were other problems with him as well.) Another point is that there is only so much one hunter can eat. He has to share anyway, or else the meat will rot.

    And then there's the problem which some commenters have already mentioned, that the hunter-gatherer societies anthropologists managed to study were all small and impoverished. Larger scale, richer hunter-gatherer societies have existed in historical times (I think some Amerind tribes or tribal confederations qualified, the richest of which lived in California, but I think the Iroquois were also mostly hunter-gatherers), and they had more stratification.

    In any event, we're now talking about economic equality of families. The Pseudoscientific American says there was "gender equality", which is nonsense anyway.

    The coastal Indians along the Canadian and Southeast Alaska littoral were relatively well off given the huge salmon runs plus other seafood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Well, a lot of evolutionary psychology is just reinforcing biases in modernized WEIRD countries.

    Most Americans don’t realize how true this is because they don’t travel, and don’t read historical fiction.

    The American macho-man ideal is actually despised in many other countries, and other historical eras.

    In a larger sense, though, the situation is rather twisted – WEIRD countries encourage both men and women to to define themselves as entirely biological creatures, and then surveys that show them actually doing so are reported as surprising confirmation of timeless human truths.

    And so our strange solipsism continues to twist our perception of reality without us being aware of it.

    It’s not so much that evolutionary psychology is wrong, although much of it is bad theory and factual error even on its own terms, as I used to love to point out, seldom to any effect- it is more that it confines itself to the biological level when humans have more complex psychologises.

    It may well have captured some level of biological truth but it’s just silly to pretend that it has provided a comprehensive explanation.

    For instance, I’ve never been attracted to blonde bimbos despite the insistence of evo-psyche that I should be and have always liked hipster, artistic, or intellectual girls, and plenty of very pretty girls like soft, effeminate emo type men.

    In general though, these counter-facts are just swept under the rug because they complicate an otherwise simple narrative and provide disturbing evidence that human psychology is not just a biological machine geared to maximize survival.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    For instance, I’ve never been attracted to blonde bimbos despite the insistence of evo-psyche that I should be and have always liked hipster, artistic, or intellectual girls, and plenty of very pretty girls like soft, effeminate emo type men.

    In general though, these counter-facts are just swept under the rug because they complicate an otherwise simple narrative and provide disturbing evidence that human psychology is not just a biological machine geared to maximize survival.


    It's not a "counter-fact". It's an exception to the rule. Plenty of very pretty girls may indeed like soft, effeminate emo type men, but if you gave one of these effeminate types and one muscular body-builder type one hour each to find a mate, who do you think would have an easier time?
    , @ben tillman

    For instance, I’ve never been attracted to blonde bimbos despite the insistence of evo-psyche that I should be and have always liked hipster, artistic, or intellectual girls, and plenty of very pretty girls like soft, effeminate emo type men.
     
    I don't think you've ever read any evo-pysch. Good luck finding anyone who expects men to be especially attracted to blonde bimbos. Abd that "merican macho-man ideal" -- I've never heard of it in evo-psych or elsewhere.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. As a standard-issue man, I maintain the eyebrow rule. No romance with any woman taller than my eyebrows.

    Sorry, ladies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    As a standard-issue man, I maintain the eyebrow rule. No romance with any woman taller than my eyebrows.
     
    I knew a girl in college who was relatively tall, for a woman, and seemed to dislike that particular fact about herself. She was well-proportioned and good looking (she looked kind of like Majel Barrett or Anna Gunn), but she realized that most men want a woman who is shorter than them and that, being tall, the pool of men available to her was smaller.
    , @JMcG
    As the short guy with the tall girl said, “When we are toes to toes my nose is in it and when we are nose to nose, my toes is in it!”
    , @Anon
    Why? Are you afraid she's going to beat you up?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Reg Cæsar

    But the refiners, extenders and appliers need something to refine, extend and apply. If there are no new revelations, the refiners, extenders and appliers run out of work eventually.
     
    China was the opposite, though. They had the "revelations", paper, gunpowder, maritime power, etc, but lacked the refiners, extenders, and appliers to do anything with them.

    "Refiners" brings to mind the "team dimension profile" developed by Allen Fahden and Srinivasan Namakkal.

    https://internalchange.com/wp-content/uploads/IWCO-063.pdf

    Here's a brief summary, which doesn't credit the creators by name:

    http://infinityconcepts.net/2012/02/team-dynamics-the-4-positions-that-create-an-effective-team/

    Fahden once wrote a book, then rented a storefront for a bookstore that carried only that book. It made News of the Weird. Now he's associated with Mike Veeck, "the man who killed disco".

    I would describe the old Chinese situation the reverse way: they had gunpowder but lacked the chemistry that underlies it. They could sail the sea, but lacked the larger geo- and cosmology for true global navigation. And lacking the principles of modern physics, they weren’t going to progress beyond sail.

    So the old Chinese case is that they had a few random applications (paper, gunpowder, sailing), but lacked the source code (periodic table, physics, astronomy).

    The irony is that today the West is submerging itself in the superstitious Cult of Current Yearism, which denies science, opposes truth, hates beauty and confounds goodness. Meanwhile the Chinese have taken up our neglected source code of success and are going from strength to strength even as we deny our former and their current accomplishments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    " They could sail the sea, but lacked the larger geo- and cosmology for true global navigation."

    Cheng Ho got as far as Africa and Arabia between 1405 and 1433.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_voyages

    The Emperor stopped further expeditions and his successors did the same, so that was that (to be fair they were having a lot of Mongol trouble on their land borders), whereas divided Europe - Spain, Portugal, Holland, England - competed against each other in exploration and navigational technology. But it was still more than 60 years before the Portuguese rounded the Cape into the Indian Ocean.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @eric
    Hunter-gatherers have little inequality, but also little wealth. Capital is not acquired because it would be expropriated by the group. Their key ethic is not so much equality as envy, which is much more destructive than greed, because it prevents the accumulation of capital needed to allow what most people think is the essence of civilization. That is, without sufficient capital, you don't have sufficient productivity, so all of one's time is spent hunting and gathering, leaving little time for art, literature, science, philosophy.

    The go-to reference for this is Schoeck’s classic _Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour_.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Schoeck

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. I’ll tell you what this is – why, it’s latitudinist! Unforgiveable.

    Come, gather away, my little chickadees. Gather to your heart’s content. The bountiful and perennial fruits of Mother Nature ..
    [PS. Dawn is six weeks away. Don't fall in a hole, darling. Oh, and wolves. Just sayin'. Wolves.]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  98. @Christopher Chantrill
    In "War Before Civilization" Lawrence H. Keeley argues that when the number of men in a tribe fell below the number needed to defend the border, the tribe disappeared and the women were absorbed by neighboring tribes.

    Can you spell Rape of the Sabine Women?

    >>Can you spell Rape of the Sabine Women?

    The Rape of the Sabine women was a setup by wily Sabine women who dug the bad boys of the Roman encampment. According to the stories, Rome was founded as a freebooter’s camp full of refugees, debtors, highwayman, runaway slaves. All were welcome who cold stand their ground, only problem, not enough women. Sabine women, from a neighboring town, conspired with these bad boys to set up the “rape” (actually kidnapping, the Latin word is rapere, which means to seize or take). The outrage Sabine men came to confront the Romans but the Sabine women intervened and implored their fathers, uncles, brothers to accept a fait accompli and join together with the Romans – their now husbands – in friendship, which is what the Sabines did. They absorbed themselves into the Roman camp and became Romans, the first of many peoples to do so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @william munny
    Wait, women really aren't biologically into powerful men who are in charge of things? This seems related to Steve's first rule of female journalism. Soon, hot women will realize they are being oppressed into thinking guys like Horgan aren't sexy. Deep down, the hottest women crave peaceful, egalitarian, men who fight the social injustice warriors with their online words.

    In the meantime, someone should warn Horgan not to read Heartiste. He might faint.

    As an aside: Alt-right pundit???

    Forster’s A Room With a View had some observations about female preferences. Lucy, played by a young Helena Bonham Carter, seemed more interested in energetic George (Julian Sands) than in dweeby snobbish Cecil (Daniel Day-Lewis). The latter had his own recognition of the difference in appeal when mentioning how some chaps did or didn’t do this or that, like playing tennis. That was filmed in the mid-1980s so was less bound by our modern restrictions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @prosa123
    "You see, women who desire tall men are simply accepting sexual stereotypes about female inferiority. "

    Or she might think tall men are more Alpha. Or, as I suspect is usually the case, she likes a man who happens to be tall.

    “If he’s tall, it might make me appear less obscenely fat. Mind you, he’d have to be really, really tall, and kinda broad-shouldered, for that to work …”
    “Mmmm. Then I’d be Noticed. By, like, princes, and plutocrats, and apex warriors and such.”
    Sexual selection, in the raw.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Don’t forget the Plow Culture vs. Hoe Culture theory. The idea is that women fare much better in agricultural societies which focus on small-scale garden type farming with hand tools (“Hoe Cultures”), as is common in tropical areas, because they participate in food production. In Plow Cultures, agricultural societies which have larger farms and draft animals and which are more common in temperate climates, women have little or nothing to do with food production and therefore have much lower status.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    Also the weather is a heck of a lot nicer in Hoe Country than it tends to be in Plow Country (hot or cold, dry or wet). Even clothes are optional. Always worth noticing.
    Eventually it degrades to something like Spade&Potato Country, if the climate is disgusting, dangerous and oppressive enough. After that, it's fish and mushrooms or something.
    , @Alden
    Whoever came up with Plow Culture has no idea of the amount of work everybody, men women and children had to do to run a successful farm before 1900.

    How or Garden culture is an African thing. The men don’t work at much of anything other than hunting.

    The women had to create their small farm or garden culture while having and nursing babies , building the huts, gathering material for the huts and firewood cooking and processing food and doing most of the work.

    One theory about why Africa never advanced is that it takes both men and women’s separate talents and skills to create advanced societies.

    But if the men don’t contribute their special talents and abilities, society stagnates for thousands of years.

    All societies began with brush huts. But most advanced beyond that. Africa didn’t.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Johnnymenomonic
    >Saini points out, anthropological research has revealed that hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian



    Except they weren't, and many people even on the left are starting to realize that.

    http://quillette.com/2017/12/16/romanticizing-hunter-gatherer/

    >Even in circumstances where hunters give away more of their meat than they end up receiving from others in return, good hunters tend to be accorded high status, and rewarded with more opportunities to reproduce everywhere the relationship has been studied.13 When taking into account ‘embodied wealth’ such as hunting returns and reproductive success, and ‘relational wealth’ such as the number of exchange and sharing partners, Alden Smith et al. calculated that hunter-gatherer societies have a ‘moderate’ level of inequality, roughly comparable to that of Denmark.14 While this is less inequality than most agricultural societies and nation states, it’s not quite the level of egalitarianism many have come to expect from hunter-gatherers.


    >In the realm of reproductive success, hunter-gatherers are even more unequal than modern industrialized populations, exhibiting what is called “greater reproductive skew,” with males having significantly larger variance in reproductive success than females.15 Among the Ache of Paraguay, males have over 4 times the variance in reproductive success that females do, which is one of the highest ratios recorded. This means some males end up having lots of children with different women, while a significant number of males end up having none at all. This is reflected in the fact that polygynous marriage is practiced in the majority of hunter-gatherer societies for which there are data. Across these societies, the average age at marriage for females is only 13.8, while the average age at marriage for males is 20.7.16 Rather than defending what would be considered child marriage in contemporary Western societies, anthropologists often omit mentioning this information entirely.

    >According to anthropologists Douglas Fry and Geneviève Souillac, “Nomadic forager data suggest a human predilection toward equality, including gender equality, in ethos and action,”17 yet the available data do not support this notion in the slightest. On the contrary, in 1978 Robert Tonkinson had found that, among the Mardu hunter-gatherers of Australia, “Mardu men accord themselves greater ritual responsibility, higher status, more power, and more rights than women. It is a society in which male interests generally prevail when rights are contested and in the centrally important arena of religious life.”18 Among the Hiwi of Venezuela, and the Ache of Paraguay, female infants and children are disproportionately victims of infanticide, neglect, and child homicide.19 20 It is in fact quite common in hunter-gatherer societies that are at war, or heavily reliant on male hunting for subsistence, for female infants to be habitually neglected or killed.21 22 In 1931, Knud Rasmussen recorded that, among the Netsilik Inuit, who were almost wholly reliant on male hunting and fishing, out of 96 births from parents he interviewed, 38 girls were killed (nearly 40 percent).23

    There was no equality in the hunter gatherer community aside from the inevitable equality in poverty.

    Completely agree. Even the vicar noticed that :

    The North American Indians, considered as a people, cannot justly be called free and equal. In all the accounts we have of
    them, and, indeed, of most other savage nations, the women are
    represented as much more completely in a state of slavery to the
    men than the poor are to the rich in civilized countries. One
    half the nation appears to act as Helots to the other half, and
    the misery that checks population falls chiefly, as it always
    must do, upon that part whose condition is lowest in the scale of
    society.

    In estimating the happiness of a savage nation, we must not fix our
    eyes only on the warrior in the prime of life: he is one of a
    hundred: he is the gentleman, the man of fortune, the chances
    have been in his favour and many efforts have failed ere this
    fortunate being was produced, whose guardian genius should
    preserve him through the numberless dangers with which he would
    be surrounded from infancy to manhood.

    http://www.fulltextarchive.com/page/An-Essay-on-the-Principle-of-Population1/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @zanon
    I'd recommend "The Old Way" by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas.

    She lived with the Bushmen of the Kalahari, and writes about how they hunted and gathered. Both women and men did both, but only men hunted *big* game (deer, etc.) which was special because it was shared with the tribe.

    Everyone, included children, hunted "slow" game (snakes, small rodents etc.) which did not need to be shared.

    Past hunts was the major topic of campfire conversation for men.

    She lived with the Bushmen of the Kalahari

    How many Bushmen did she live with at any one time? Was there a nightly rota?

    Many of the famous women “anthropologists” of the 20th century seem to have found their savage subjects quite penetrating.

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    One or two male ones did too - like Colin Turnbull, a product of Westminster and Oxford, a homosexual who hated the culture and people he was born into, and "... who was motivated by a deep-seated wish to find goodness, beauty, and power in the oppressed or ridiculed* and, by making those qualities known, reveal the evils of western civilization".

    http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/g/grinker-africa.html

    * he wasn't above a bit of oppression and ridicule himself, for which see his feelings about the Ik of Uganda. In Bernd Heine's words "At a meeting I had with the elders... I was asked if it was not possible to take legal action against Turnbull. Should he ever dare to come back to Ik country they would force him to "eat his own faeces"."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @prosa123
    Don't forget the Plow Culture vs. Hoe Culture theory. The idea is that women fare much better in agricultural societies which focus on small-scale garden type farming with hand tools ("Hoe Cultures"), as is common in tropical areas, because they participate in food production. In Plow Cultures, agricultural societies which have larger farms and draft animals and which are more common in temperate climates, women have little or nothing to do with food production and therefore have much lower status.

    Also the weather is a heck of a lot nicer in Hoe Country than it tends to be in Plow Country (hot or cold, dry or wet). Even clothes are optional. Always worth noticing.
    Eventually it degrades to something like Spade&Potato Country, if the climate is disgusting, dangerous and oppressive enough. After that, it’s fish and mushrooms or something.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Luke Lea
    Horgan's comeback: Ethnographic reports that the men were hunters and the women gatherers were all written by men.

    Because they were the ones who could write. What a Sad Jerk-off Wanker (SJW) Horgan is.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Tiny Duck
    Women have wide ranging desires. Some women want to be dominated. We can look to our politics and religions, & see many women who vote & worship against there own interests. There are many & varied explanations for this, but it is very disturbing to see this question posed.

    What do you think is the cause of women’s desire to be dominated then?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Almost Missouri
    The hunter-gatherer vs. agrarian comparisons are not like-kind. First, as Jack D points out, they compare impoverished hunter-gatherers vs. affluent agrarians. Second, they compare tiny hunter-gatherer tribes, e.g. Amazonians, vs. enormous agrarian civilizations, e.g., Babylon. Of course when your group is only a few dozen people, there won't be much stratification, irrespective of how you subsist.

    On the rare occasions that hunter-gatherers (well, herdsmen really) have managed to assemble a large nation, e.g., the Mongols, inequality mysteriously appears: the Khan has absolute power and wealth, the peons/slaves none, and the Khan's lieutenants in the middle.

    If you compare a hunter-gatherer tribe of a hundred souls with a subsistence farming village of a hundred souls, the (in)equality is about equal. Except that women probably get treated better in the farming village.

    Horganism ≠ Science.

    Horganism = Lysenkoism.

    Good point about the Mongols. The Khans amassed extraordinary wealth.

    But, I disagree with your notion of an underclass mongols in poverty. The Mongols took slaves. The slaves became the mongol underclass.

    I understand slavery is also a feature of many hunter-gatherer societies. Notice that the SJWs elide over that in their celebration of hunter-gather.

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "I understand slavery is also a feature of many hunter-gatherer societies."

    Really? Any links? I've always thought it was a feature of farming societies, not hunter-gatherers.

    When hunters go to war, don't they kill the men and take the women - after all, what would you do with a captured male - give him a weapon and have him behind you while hunting?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. The left is best described as navelgazers fleeing phronesis. Everyone who has dealt with actual women away from keyboard has encountered the superficially paradoxical phenomenon of women deeply resenting submissive men and rewarding dominant men. This is explained by the female perception that all men are their slaves: the submissive ones aren’t good for any actual work (or, worse, are in competition with women for white collar and academic work, which women see as entirely their own), but the superficially-dominant men are actually going to get out there and sweat. However much of a pain they are, they’re good for something. But even without that explanation everyone who has gone out and learned by experience has encountered this. This is why game is so important. Whether game got you laid or not, game forces the going-out and the jettisonning of received wisdom, like nothing else in our society. Years before the thing called the alt-right was or was not a thing, people were talking about redpilling in terms of the road’s educational asphalt complicating our brilliant little schemes. The other big illustration of this is the “forty years of American education” experiments seeking to deny that race exists enough to allow general prediction. This is why Horgan cannot explain his way out: his explanations are the problem. It is truly ironic that knowitalls use “illogical” as a pseudo-subtle synonym for “stupid.” Logic exists to sort data. It has no other meaning. Without data, or with bad or incomplete data, logic is positively unhelpful.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  109. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB
    Well, a lot of evolutionary psychology is just reinforcing biases in modernized WEIRD countries.

    Most Americans don't realize how true this is because they don't travel, and don't read historical fiction.

    The American macho-man ideal is actually despised in many other countries, and other historical eras.

    In a larger sense, though, the situation is rather twisted - WEIRD countries encourage both men and women to to define themselves as entirely biological creatures, and then surveys that show them actually doing so are reported as surprising confirmation of timeless human truths.

    And so our strange solipsism continues to twist our perception of reality without us being aware of it.

    It's not so much that evolutionary psychology is wrong, although much of it is bad theory and factual error even on its own terms, as I used to love to point out, seldom to any effect- it is more that it confines itself to the biological level when humans have more complex psychologises.

    It may well have captured some level of biological truth but it's just silly to pretend that it has provided a comprehensive explanation.

    For instance, I've never been attracted to blonde bimbos despite the insistence of evo-psyche that I should be and have always liked hipster, artistic, or intellectual girls, and plenty of very pretty girls like soft, effeminate emo type men.

    In general though, these counter-facts are just swept under the rug because they complicate an otherwise simple narrative and provide disturbing evidence that human psychology is not just a biological machine geared to maximize survival.

    For instance, I’ve never been attracted to blonde bimbos despite the insistence of evo-psyche that I should be and have always liked hipster, artistic, or intellectual girls, and plenty of very pretty girls like soft, effeminate emo type men.

    In general though, these counter-facts are just swept under the rug because they complicate an otherwise simple narrative and provide disturbing evidence that human psychology is not just a biological machine geared to maximize survival.

    It’s not a “counter-fact”. It’s an exception to the rule. Plenty of very pretty girls may indeed like soft, effeminate emo type men, but if you gave one of these effeminate types and one muscular body-builder type one hour each to find a mate, who do you think would have an easier time?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    It' not a “counter-fact”. It’s an exception to the rule. Plenty of very pretty girls may indeed like soft, effeminate emo type men, but if you gave one of these effeminate types and one muscular body-builder type one hour each to find a mate, who do you think would have an easier time?

    Depends on where you go. If most of the bars in Williamsburg Brooklyn, where I live, the effeminate emo type would have a better chance.

    In Italian Bensonhurst, the muscle guy.

    Other places I've been to where the soft type would would do better are Sweden, Denmark, Spain, and parts of Asia.

    Only Americans like douchebags - but that isn't an reason to project our preferences onto the world, even tho Americans seem to have a really, really hard time understanding that others may be different than them.

    Also, if you read classic literature you will find that in earlier eras Britain also preferred soft effeminate men.

    The picture is complicated and the biological substrate is just one layer that's heavily modified by environment.

    Just because we chose to settle down in the most primitive biological substrate and pride ourselves on how tough and realistic we are shouldn't blind us to the reality others have made other choices.
    , @S. Anonyia
    The emo guy would do better among pretty women over the age of 20 in most of the U. S. Upper class women, who make up the majority of attractive women due to the obesity epidemic ruining the lower classes, would definitely pick the sensitive emo guy over the roidhead.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Here is Hogan’s final paragraph:

    Proponents of biological theories of sexual inequality accuse their critics of being “blank slaters,” who deny any innate psychological tendencies between the sexes. This is a straw man. I am not a blank-slater, nor do I know any critic of evolutionary psychology who is. But I fear that biological theorizing about these tendencies, in our still-sexist world, does more harm than good. It empowers the social injustice warriors, and that is the last thing our world needs.

    Yeah, he and others aren’t believers in the blank-slate. They just believe that every single group is biologically the same as every other group on every single socially relevant trait, and they will do everything they can to punish those who assert otherwise. No blank-slatism there! Blank slatism is science-denialism, and that’s not us!! We worship Science! We and everything about us are only good! But let me tell you who the evil doers are. They are the people who dare to speculate that maybe a certain group differs biologically from another group on a socially relevant trait. They hate justice, and can’t do science, because they would never even speculate about such things if they did.

    The guy is a lame brain. Even the cherries he picks are rotten.

    Read More
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    You know, if someone claims emphatically that they aren't blank slaters, they should be obliged to pick at least one socially relevant trait and two groups who differ biologically on that trait, otherwise they are almost certainly phonies. At the absolute minimum, they should be obliged to acknowledge that such a trait and such groups exist, even if they are not going to identify the trait and the groups. Otherwise, they really have zero basis upon which to proclaim that they don't believe in the blank slate. They are the unscientific goons they desperately wish to pretend they aren't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    That is, without sufficient capital, you don’t have sufficient productivity, so all of one’s time is spent hunting and gathering, leaving little time for art, literature, science, philosophy.
     
    Actually eric, hunter-gatherer societies are the original leisure society. They spend about three hours a day on acquiring food and the rest in play and relaxation.

    Most literature, science, and art are attempts to heal the psychic wound of living in civilization. They would serve no purpose in a society without that wound.

    Actually eric, hunter-gatherer societies are the original leisure society. They spend about three hours a day on acquiring food and the rest in play and relaxation.

    I think you mean “The rest drinking and fighting for the men, and sitting around chattering endlessly about nothing for the women.”.

    More or less what you see in any large group of unemployed people, really. Sounds absolutely maddening.

    Most literature, science, and art are attempts to heal the psychic wound of living in civilization. They would serve no purpose in a society without that wound.

    You ever have a toothache and couldn’t get to a dentist for some reason? That was the state about a fourth of the population was living in all the time prior to modern medicine. I would consider that a purpose for science to serve.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    I think you mean “The rest drinking and fighting for the men, and sitting around chattering endlessly about nothing for the women.”.

    I don't think it's smart to take modern people as the template for humanity. We're products of a very specific environment, and our flaws and preoccupations weren't applicable to other cultures and other social organizations.

    Have you heard of the concept of WEIRD societies?

    It's surprising that this concept has not led to greater awareness of the illegitimacy of projection our own make up onto others.

    For instance, we've eliminated the transcendent from our lives and now we're bogged down in trivialities.

    Don't assume this was characteristic of gunter gatherers.

    You ever have a toothache and couldn’t get to a dentist for some reason? That was the state about a fourth of the population was living in all the time prior to modern medicine. I would consider that a purpose for science to serve.

    Sure, sure - although I wonder how much modern dentistry is a solution to a problem caused by modern living habits.

    Probably 90% of the miracle of modern medicine are an antidote to conditions caused by modern life.

    I love how you materialists always trot out the dentistry example - it has quite a storied pedigree.

    It is indeed your best defense, and that is sad.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @anon

    Did women who marched on Washington on January 21, 2017, actually have an innate desire to be dominated by men?
     
    I get that this is just a disingenuous, sort of smartass comment, but I would note that not one of those women seemed to mind when they were being dominated by a smooth-talking black guy a few years ago. They seemed pretty excited about it, in fact.

    There is an idea in the PUA community that girls will frequently act out subconsciously hoping that men will put them in their place. A “shit test.” It’s an idea that deserves serious attention.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @candid_observer
    Here is Hogan's final paragraph:

    Proponents of biological theories of sexual inequality accuse their critics of being “blank slaters,” who deny any innate psychological tendencies between the sexes. This is a straw man. I am not a blank-slater, nor do I know any critic of evolutionary psychology who is. But I fear that biological theorizing about these tendencies, in our still-sexist world, does more harm than good. It empowers the social injustice warriors, and that is the last thing our world needs.
     
    Yeah, he and others aren't believers in the blank-slate. They just believe that every single group is biologically the same as every other group on every single socially relevant trait, and they will do everything they can to punish those who assert otherwise. No blank-slatism there! Blank slatism is science-denialism, and that's not us!! We worship Science! We and everything about us are only good! But let me tell you who the evil doers are. They are the people who dare to speculate that maybe a certain group differs biologically from another group on a socially relevant trait. They hate justice, and can't do science, because they would never even speculate about such things if they did.

    The guy is a lame brain. Even the cherries he picks are rotten.

    You know, if someone claims emphatically that they aren’t blank slaters, they should be obliged to pick at least one socially relevant trait and two groups who differ biologically on that trait, otherwise they are almost certainly phonies. At the absolute minimum, they should be obliged to acknowledge that such a trait and such groups exist, even if they are not going to identify the trait and the groups. Otherwise, they really have zero basis upon which to proclaim that they don’t believe in the blank slate. They are the unscientific goons they desperately wish to pretend they aren’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Anon
    Of course successful hunters shared. They often bagged more than their own family could eat before it rotted. 'The tribe' you're talking about wasn't some random collection of people, but your own relatives, consisting of uncles, aunts, cousins, second cousins, etc., all of them being people you'd known since babyhood, etc. The emotional and protective bonds between you and the tribe were powerful, and of course you shared your food with them. You have to stop thinking about our modern-day atomized society where no one knows their next door neighbors. Hunter-gatherers were not like that at all. Everyone is a relative in hunter-gathering tribe, and even your marriage partners were often women who were anywhere from your 2nd through 4th cousins in blood relationship.

    Secondly, sharing food was how you acquired status. You provided, and the tribe listened to your opinions with respect and followed your leadership and advice. Look up the concept of 'Big Man' as anthropologists use it. Thirdly, the law of reciprocity applied. If you didn't bag anything that day, the successful hunter who did catch something shared his catch with you so you and your family wouldn't go hungry. All the hunters in the tribe did this as a matter of course. They didn't think of it as hunting for their own particular family, but as hunting for the tribe as a whole. Quite often, the men weren't hunting individually, but as a group, and they thought eating as something that was supposed to be a group activity as well. They would all carry back their game at the end of the day and have a big picnic for the whole tribe.

    Sharing with complete strangers, often including the sharing of women, is also firmly established in the historical record.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Corn
    “rather did the image of these women running around in their clever hats provoke any desire in males to dominate them in physical ways.”

    Pass. I’ll take the farmer’s daughter behind door #3

    She was only a farmer’s daughter, but all the horsemen knew her.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @The True and Original David
    As a standard-issue man, I maintain the eyebrow rule. No romance with any woman taller than my eyebrows.

    Sorry, ladies.

    As a standard-issue man, I maintain the eyebrow rule. No romance with any woman taller than my eyebrows.

    I knew a girl in college who was relatively tall, for a woman, and seemed to dislike that particular fact about herself. She was well-proportioned and good looking (she looked kind of like Majel Barrett or Anna Gunn), but she realized that most men want a woman who is shorter than them and that, being tall, the pool of men available to her was smaller.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The True and Original David
    Tall ladies especially want tall men. I have seen tall wallflowers stand up straight and come alive like it's the Fourth of July within one minute of my introducing them to a tall man. It's a striking thing to see.

    Fortunately for tall ladies, tall men are around. One has to hunt for them, but they are pretty easy to spot.
    , @Ivy
    Taller women would seem more likely to attend better schools, ceteris paribus. Better diets make taller undergrads, also noticed among Asian students. A casual stroll around a few campuses, encouraged if you haven't been back for a while, would show more guys around 6'2" to 6"4", paired up with coeds around 5"8"-5"10". Inflation impacts many aspects of life, HBD and beyond. The days of 5' or even 5'3" petite gals are waning as the competition is bigger.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. As a non-quantitative major, I have found Quanta to be among the few publications to try to explain hard science well to the innumerate (insofar as it can be explained to them)

    https://www.quantamagazine.org

    Meanwhile, the Heartiste blog frequently calls attention to deplorably sexist scientific papers.

    And Quillette seems to be becoming a gathering spot for freethinking scientists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  118. @Intelligent Dasein
    It is deeply indicative of the benighted nature of this whole discussion that Horgan is able to simply toss out statements like "in light of the fact that we are the products of natural selection," and this premise is accepted without further ado by friend and foe alike as the self-evident (and, since it is never even examined, entirely superfluous) antecedent material by which the debate is framed. Until this ridiculous situation is amended, there will never be any traction gained by anyone arguing for any sort of "realism" in those studies concerned with the nature of man.

    For evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, and all such cognate derivative disciplines are, like all things Darwinian, completely incapable of furnishing any proof as to the truth or falsity of statements concerning human nature, one way or the other. "Proof" for the Darwinian consists in so arranging a pictorial presentation of a selection of quite varied and discrepant facts so as to conform to his mechanical-causal scheme for explaining all aspects of living reality. Darwinism is therefore a method and not a result. The Darwinist reads his theory into nature, not out of it. Anything whatsoever can be "Darwinized,"meaning that it can be explained as the outcome of a selection process perfectly in accordance with the scheme; and the truth of this explanation is thereafter accepted due solely to the unquestioned faith placed in the method, without regard to the qualitative nature of the assertion or the particular facts presented. Therefore any debate about human nature which accepts Darwinism as a premise is incapable of resolution and descends ultimately into the mere clash of opinions and preferences, in which one's involved personal inclinations play the dominant role.

    Confusingly, the "race realists" of today are content to be but one more insignificant voice in this meaningless debate, when the logical implications of their own position, as well as their only hopes of political success, necessitate them rising out of it. In truth, anyone calling himself a race realist ought to be the very last person touting the merits of Darwinism, but this has been completely misunderstood due to the appalling lack of intellectual rigor that prevails among them. Moreover, one gets the impression that the Darwinism of the race realists is clung to with such tenacity simply because they believe it to justify their realist beliefs, that Darwinism in itself is neither understood nor appreciated in its depths, and that there would be little reason for mentioning it at all were it not for the imprimatur it seemed to confer upon their political leanings.

    But the implication that Darwinism actually establishes race realism is entirely backwards. If evolutionary theory were actually true, then there would be no "race" whatsoever to speak of, and consequently "race realism" would be an oxymoron and the very groundless conceit of bigots that the Left accuses it of being. On the Darwinian reading there are nothing but transitional forms, a swarming mass of incoherent and undifferentiated life; no race, no definition, no species. The unquestioned sexual compatibility among the various human races renders the whole idea absurd even on an evolutionary model; and the oft-cited analogy between human races and differing breeds of dog, horse, or other domesticated animals would tend to support the notion that acculturation and training were more important in human development than mere differences in ancestry as such. Indeed, the fact that HBDers must ultimately rest their case on the vanishingly small dissimilarities in the statistical distribution of DNA sequences among races is an embarrassment and a confession of the weakness of their entire position.

    Among human beings, race is primarily an affiliation of the affections and the understanding and not of the body. The "real" differences between the races, therefore, must be looked for in the will rather than the biology of the individual. The will, being an aspect of the soul (i.e. the substantial form) is the prime phenomenon, the essence of the man. Far from being the ephemeral will-o-the-wisp, the coincidental conglomeration of social patterns and "memes" that modern psychology holds it to be, it is precisely here that all real and essential human differences reside. Where this not the case, none of the other differences would even register as anything more than incidental, and having white or black skin would be of no more importance than having blond or brown hair. But foreignness, i.e. the felt incompatibility between two natures, is a decisive and inwardly felt experience in every life. The racelessness favored by the cosmopolitans has nothing to do with a blending of skin tones, but is rather the championing of the undifferentiated and completely pliable will of a rootless urban humanity, for which the possibility of consensus exists only for practical questions of the grossest kind, and which is ironically the mirror image of the very Darwinism embraced by the race realists.

    If you consider yourself a realist and also a Darwinist, then you are ignorant. That is not to say that you are not intelligent; you may be very bright, well read, have a high IQ, and all that. But you have clearly not worked through the cultural, biological, physical, and metaphysical implications of your beliefs with any sort of consistency. Only the real essentialism of Aristotle, deepened by 2,000 years of Western Christianity, can provide the basis for articulating real racial differences that do not result in absurdities. If we do not begin with a genuine understanding of reality, there is no hope.

    Excellent comment, as always.

    You’re on enemy ground ideologically and you probably won’t reach too many here – facts and logic won’t sway them.

    But the message will reach those capable of receiving it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @The True and Original David
    As a standard-issue man, I maintain the eyebrow rule. No romance with any woman taller than my eyebrows.

    Sorry, ladies.

    As the short guy with the tall girl said, “When we are toes to toes my nose is in it and when we are nose to nose, my toes is in it!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @lavoisier
    Good piece last year by Jerry Coyne: When ideology trumps biology:

    If I was the late Andy Rooney, I’d say “You know what really bothers me? When science shows some facts about nature, and then someone rejects those facts because they’re inconvenient or uncomfortable for their ideology.”
     
    Isn't that Jerry Coyne the same guy who criticized Watson for suggesting that African intelligence was a bit on the low side?

    What has happened to make him concerned now about ideology trumping science?

    Isn’t that Jerry Coyne the same guy who criticized Watson for suggesting that African intelligence was a bit on the low side?

    What has happened to make him concerned now about ideology trumping science?

    While disagreeing with Watson, Coyne did write that he’s against censorship of Watson.

    Interestingly, Jerry Coyne’s thesis adviser was of all people Richard Lewontin, who he still has fond regards for: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/10/23/a-visit-with-the-boss/

    Horgan mentions that skeptic (and fellow Scientific American columnist) Michael Shermer criticized his piece. Shermer used to be in the tank for Stephen Jay Gould. I suspect that Shermer had his eyes opened when the explanation of Lewontin’s Fallacy was popularized.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @anon
    Actually eric, hunter-gatherer societies are the original leisure society. They spend about three hours a day on acquiring food and the rest in play and relaxation.

    I think you mean "The rest drinking and fighting for the men, and sitting around chattering endlessly about nothing for the women.".

    More or less what you see in any large group of unemployed people, really. Sounds absolutely maddening.

    Most literature, science, and art are attempts to heal the psychic wound of living in civilization. They would serve no purpose in a society without that wound.

    You ever have a toothache and couldn't get to a dentist for some reason? That was the state about a fourth of the population was living in all the time prior to modern medicine. I would consider that a purpose for science to serve.

    I think you mean “The rest drinking and fighting for the men, and sitting around chattering endlessly about nothing for the women.”.

    I don’t think it’s smart to take modern people as the template for humanity. We’re products of a very specific environment, and our flaws and preoccupations weren’t applicable to other cultures and other social organizations.

    Have you heard of the concept of WEIRD societies?

    It’s surprising that this concept has not led to greater awareness of the illegitimacy of projection our own make up onto others.

    For instance, we’ve eliminated the transcendent from our lives and now we’re bogged down in trivialities.

    Don’t assume this was characteristic of gunter gatherers.

    You ever have a toothache and couldn’t get to a dentist for some reason? That was the state about a fourth of the population was living in all the time prior to modern medicine. I would consider that a purpose for science to serve.

    Sure, sure – although I wonder how much modern dentistry is a solution to a problem caused by modern living habits.

    Probably 90% of the miracle of modern medicine are an antidote to conditions caused by modern life.

    I love how you materialists always trot out the dentistry example – it has quite a storied pedigree.

    It is indeed your best defense, and that is sad.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    I don’t think it’s smart to take modern people as the template for humanity. We’re products of a very specific environment, and our flaws and preoccupations weren’t applicable to other cultures and other social organizations.

    Well, those are the only ones we can actually observe. Would you prefer that I take up your tactic of just sort of imaging what hunter-gatherers would do if they lived like the people in my fantasies of pre-modern paradises?

    What do modern-day hunter-gatherers do that's any different from what I said?

    Have you heard of the concept of WEIRD societies?

    Yes. Of course.

    It’s surprising that this concept has not led to greater awareness of the illegitimacy of projection our own make up onto others.

    It's also surprising that people still project their Rousseauian fantasies onto the noble savages.

    For instance, we’ve eliminated the transcendent from our lives and now we’re bogged down in trivialities.

    Don’t assume this was characteristic of gunter gatherers.

    Don't assume that it's not, either.

    If you ever read stuff like Catholic philosophy or Hindu mysticism, you'll notice that civilized people can have very well-developed notions of "transcendance". But you know how we got all that stuff? By having civilizations, that led to writing, which allowed people throughout time and space to expand on one another's ideas.

    Sure, sure – although I wonder how much modern dentistry is a solution to a problem caused by modern living habits.

    Some of it, obviously. The noble savages no doubt had less tooth decay. But they still had to deal with abscesses, impacted molars, infections, and everything like that.

    And that's just one example. When was the last time you came down with a severe case of intestinal parasites? How about hookworm? Ever get gored by an elephant tusk?

    It is indeed your best defense, and that is sad.

    Actually, my best defense would be to point out that you're basically just making stuff up.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @eric
    Hunter-gatherers have little inequality, but also little wealth. Capital is not acquired because it would be expropriated by the group. Their key ethic is not so much equality as envy, which is much more destructive than greed, because it prevents the accumulation of capital needed to allow what most people think is the essence of civilization. That is, without sufficient capital, you don't have sufficient productivity, so all of one's time is spent hunting and gathering, leaving little time for art, literature, science, philosophy.

    Hunter gatherers have little wealth not because they are envious, but rather that the acquisition of wealth is constrained by the availability of game and berries in the short term, and by technology in the long term. Can you show that social approbation or disapprobation of envy and greed are causal elements of the change in social order from hunter gathering to agriculture to modern industry?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Intelligent Dasein
    It is deeply indicative of the benighted nature of this whole discussion that Horgan is able to simply toss out statements like "in light of the fact that we are the products of natural selection," and this premise is accepted without further ado by friend and foe alike as the self-evident (and, since it is never even examined, entirely superfluous) antecedent material by which the debate is framed. Until this ridiculous situation is amended, there will never be any traction gained by anyone arguing for any sort of "realism" in those studies concerned with the nature of man.

    For evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, and all such cognate derivative disciplines are, like all things Darwinian, completely incapable of furnishing any proof as to the truth or falsity of statements concerning human nature, one way or the other. "Proof" for the Darwinian consists in so arranging a pictorial presentation of a selection of quite varied and discrepant facts so as to conform to his mechanical-causal scheme for explaining all aspects of living reality. Darwinism is therefore a method and not a result. The Darwinist reads his theory into nature, not out of it. Anything whatsoever can be "Darwinized,"meaning that it can be explained as the outcome of a selection process perfectly in accordance with the scheme; and the truth of this explanation is thereafter accepted due solely to the unquestioned faith placed in the method, without regard to the qualitative nature of the assertion or the particular facts presented. Therefore any debate about human nature which accepts Darwinism as a premise is incapable of resolution and descends ultimately into the mere clash of opinions and preferences, in which one's involved personal inclinations play the dominant role.

    Confusingly, the "race realists" of today are content to be but one more insignificant voice in this meaningless debate, when the logical implications of their own position, as well as their only hopes of political success, necessitate them rising out of it. In truth, anyone calling himself a race realist ought to be the very last person touting the merits of Darwinism, but this has been completely misunderstood due to the appalling lack of intellectual rigor that prevails among them. Moreover, one gets the impression that the Darwinism of the race realists is clung to with such tenacity simply because they believe it to justify their realist beliefs, that Darwinism in itself is neither understood nor appreciated in its depths, and that there would be little reason for mentioning it at all were it not for the imprimatur it seemed to confer upon their political leanings.

    But the implication that Darwinism actually establishes race realism is entirely backwards. If evolutionary theory were actually true, then there would be no "race" whatsoever to speak of, and consequently "race realism" would be an oxymoron and the very groundless conceit of bigots that the Left accuses it of being. On the Darwinian reading there are nothing but transitional forms, a swarming mass of incoherent and undifferentiated life; no race, no definition, no species. The unquestioned sexual compatibility among the various human races renders the whole idea absurd even on an evolutionary model; and the oft-cited analogy between human races and differing breeds of dog, horse, or other domesticated animals would tend to support the notion that acculturation and training were more important in human development than mere differences in ancestry as such. Indeed, the fact that HBDers must ultimately rest their case on the vanishingly small dissimilarities in the statistical distribution of DNA sequences among races is an embarrassment and a confession of the weakness of their entire position.

    Among human beings, race is primarily an affiliation of the affections and the understanding and not of the body. The "real" differences between the races, therefore, must be looked for in the will rather than the biology of the individual. The will, being an aspect of the soul (i.e. the substantial form) is the prime phenomenon, the essence of the man. Far from being the ephemeral will-o-the-wisp, the coincidental conglomeration of social patterns and "memes" that modern psychology holds it to be, it is precisely here that all real and essential human differences reside. Where this not the case, none of the other differences would even register as anything more than incidental, and having white or black skin would be of no more importance than having blond or brown hair. But foreignness, i.e. the felt incompatibility between two natures, is a decisive and inwardly felt experience in every life. The racelessness favored by the cosmopolitans has nothing to do with a blending of skin tones, but is rather the championing of the undifferentiated and completely pliable will of a rootless urban humanity, for which the possibility of consensus exists only for practical questions of the grossest kind, and which is ironically the mirror image of the very Darwinism embraced by the race realists.

    If you consider yourself a realist and also a Darwinist, then you are ignorant. That is not to say that you are not intelligent; you may be very bright, well read, have a high IQ, and all that. But you have clearly not worked through the cultural, biological, physical, and metaphysical implications of your beliefs with any sort of consistency. Only the real essentialism of Aristotle, deepened by 2,000 years of Western Christianity, can provide the basis for articulating real racial differences that do not result in absurdities. If we do not begin with a genuine understanding of reality, there is no hope.

    It’s only the first of January but your comment very well may end up winning the award for most pretentious comment of 2018.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dwb
    Well played.

    If he had been from Hollywood, he would have either released it back in December, or held it until later in the year when competition for the awards really heats up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Mr. Anon

    As a standard-issue man, I maintain the eyebrow rule. No romance with any woman taller than my eyebrows.
     
    I knew a girl in college who was relatively tall, for a woman, and seemed to dislike that particular fact about herself. She was well-proportioned and good looking (she looked kind of like Majel Barrett or Anna Gunn), but she realized that most men want a woman who is shorter than them and that, being tall, the pool of men available to her was smaller.

    Tall ladies especially want tall men. I have seen tall wallflowers stand up straight and come alive like it’s the Fourth of July within one minute of my introducing them to a tall man. It’s a striking thing to see.

    Fortunately for tall ladies, tall men are around. One has to hunt for them, but they are pretty easy to spot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Almost Missouri
    I would describe the old Chinese situation the reverse way: they had gunpowder but lacked the chemistry that underlies it. They could sail the sea, but lacked the larger geo- and cosmology for true global navigation. And lacking the principles of modern physics, they weren't going to progress beyond sail.

    So the old Chinese case is that they had a few random applications (paper, gunpowder, sailing), but lacked the source code (periodic table, physics, astronomy).

    The irony is that today the West is submerging itself in the superstitious Cult of Current Yearism, which denies science, opposes truth, hates beauty and confounds goodness. Meanwhile the Chinese have taken up our neglected source code of success and are going from strength to strength even as we deny our former and their current accomplishments.

    ” They could sail the sea, but lacked the larger geo- and cosmology for true global navigation.”

    Cheng Ho got as far as Africa and Arabia between 1405 and 1433.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_voyages

    The Emperor stopped further expeditions and his successors did the same, so that was that (to be fair they were having a lot of Mongol trouble on their land borders), whereas divided Europe – Spain, Portugal, Holland, England – competed against each other in exploration and navigational technology. But it was still more than 60 years before the Portuguese rounded the Cape into the Indian Ocean.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Mr. Anon

    As a standard-issue man, I maintain the eyebrow rule. No romance with any woman taller than my eyebrows.
     
    I knew a girl in college who was relatively tall, for a woman, and seemed to dislike that particular fact about herself. She was well-proportioned and good looking (she looked kind of like Majel Barrett or Anna Gunn), but she realized that most men want a woman who is shorter than them and that, being tall, the pool of men available to her was smaller.

    Taller women would seem more likely to attend better schools, ceteris paribus. Better diets make taller undergrads, also noticed among Asian students. A casual stroll around a few campuses, encouraged if you haven’t been back for a while, would show more guys around 6’2″ to 6″4″, paired up with coeds around 5″8″-5″10″. Inflation impacts many aspects of life, HBD and beyond. The days of 5′ or even 5’3″ petite gals are waning as the competition is bigger.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    A casual stroll around California campuses like the one where I worked will reveal mostly 5’6 to 8 men and 5 ft to 5’4 women.

    They all seem to have straight thick black hair, very dark brown eyes. Wide cheekbones and narrow eyes. Their complexions vary from palest White to light tan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @lavoisier
    Good piece last year by Jerry Coyne: When ideology trumps biology:

    If I was the late Andy Rooney, I’d say “You know what really bothers me? When science shows some facts about nature, and then someone rejects those facts because they’re inconvenient or uncomfortable for their ideology.”
     
    Isn't that Jerry Coyne the same guy who criticized Watson for suggesting that African intelligence was a bit on the low side?

    What has happened to make him concerned now about ideology trumping science?

    How Jerry Coyne splits the difference as of August 2017:

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/08/28/a-sensible-article-on-human-race/

    Coyne’s against ideological denial of biological differences.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @YetAnotherAnon
    If you're killing large game, outside of very cold climates there's no downside to sharing, as the meat will go off before a single person or family can eat it all. And the upside is the social status of being the guy who fed the group, plus reasonable expectation of reciprocation.

    (I imagine a lot of large game hunting would be done by a male group anyway, but there'll always be the one or two guys who get in harms way to do the initial wounding, and the place of danger would be the place of honour).

    “If you’re killing large game, outside of very cold climates there’s no downside to sharing, as the meat will go off before a single person or family can eat it all. ”

    As happened to Christopher “Into the Wild” McCandless. He shot a moose while living an isolated life in Alaska, but it wasn’t cold out at the time and almost all of the meat rotted. He became severely malnourished, which was at least a major factor in his death.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JMcG
    I remember being affected by the story of that poor misguided kid as presented by Krakauer. He was woefully unprepared for what he attempted to take on. On my final mountaineering trip I suffered a pretty bad case of altitude sickness, probably High Altitude Cerebral Edema from what I can gather after discussion with my doctor. I was helpless in my sleeping bag, hallucinating to the point that I was convinced my climbing partners were planning to kill me. I had an ice axe in the bag with me to defend myself.
    After thirty hours or so I started to come to my senses, but I was weak as a kitten for days.
    Something about that guy wrapping himself in a nylon shroud and laying down to die so far from his friends and family really struck a nerve with me. Terrible way to go.
    , @anonguy

    “If you’re killing large game, outside of very cold climates there’s no downside to sharing, as the meat will go off before a single person or family can eat it all. ”
     
    Couldn't they make it into pemmican or something?
    , @Alden
    I read that book. As I remember he was inspired by all the books he read about primitive life.

    Poor kid, he learned why primitive peoples were so few.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Intelligent Dasein
    It is deeply indicative of the benighted nature of this whole discussion that Horgan is able to simply toss out statements like "in light of the fact that we are the products of natural selection," and this premise is accepted without further ado by friend and foe alike as the self-evident (and, since it is never even examined, entirely superfluous) antecedent material by which the debate is framed. Until this ridiculous situation is amended, there will never be any traction gained by anyone arguing for any sort of "realism" in those studies concerned with the nature of man.

    For evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, and all such cognate derivative disciplines are, like all things Darwinian, completely incapable of furnishing any proof as to the truth or falsity of statements concerning human nature, one way or the other. "Proof" for the Darwinian consists in so arranging a pictorial presentation of a selection of quite varied and discrepant facts so as to conform to his mechanical-causal scheme for explaining all aspects of living reality. Darwinism is therefore a method and not a result. The Darwinist reads his theory into nature, not out of it. Anything whatsoever can be "Darwinized,"meaning that it can be explained as the outcome of a selection process perfectly in accordance with the scheme; and the truth of this explanation is thereafter accepted due solely to the unquestioned faith placed in the method, without regard to the qualitative nature of the assertion or the particular facts presented. Therefore any debate about human nature which accepts Darwinism as a premise is incapable of resolution and descends ultimately into the mere clash of opinions and preferences, in which one's involved personal inclinations play the dominant role.

    Confusingly, the "race realists" of today are content to be but one more insignificant voice in this meaningless debate, when the logical implications of their own position, as well as their only hopes of political success, necessitate them rising out of it. In truth, anyone calling himself a race realist ought to be the very last person touting the merits of Darwinism, but this has been completely misunderstood due to the appalling lack of intellectual rigor that prevails among them. Moreover, one gets the impression that the Darwinism of the race realists is clung to with such tenacity simply because they believe it to justify their realist beliefs, that Darwinism in itself is neither understood nor appreciated in its depths, and that there would be little reason for mentioning it at all were it not for the imprimatur it seemed to confer upon their political leanings.

    But the implication that Darwinism actually establishes race realism is entirely backwards. If evolutionary theory were actually true, then there would be no "race" whatsoever to speak of, and consequently "race realism" would be an oxymoron and the very groundless conceit of bigots that the Left accuses it of being. On the Darwinian reading there are nothing but transitional forms, a swarming mass of incoherent and undifferentiated life; no race, no definition, no species. The unquestioned sexual compatibility among the various human races renders the whole idea absurd even on an evolutionary model; and the oft-cited analogy between human races and differing breeds of dog, horse, or other domesticated animals would tend to support the notion that acculturation and training were more important in human development than mere differences in ancestry as such. Indeed, the fact that HBDers must ultimately rest their case on the vanishingly small dissimilarities in the statistical distribution of DNA sequences among races is an embarrassment and a confession of the weakness of their entire position.

    Among human beings, race is primarily an affiliation of the affections and the understanding and not of the body. The "real" differences between the races, therefore, must be looked for in the will rather than the biology of the individual. The will, being an aspect of the soul (i.e. the substantial form) is the prime phenomenon, the essence of the man. Far from being the ephemeral will-o-the-wisp, the coincidental conglomeration of social patterns and "memes" that modern psychology holds it to be, it is precisely here that all real and essential human differences reside. Where this not the case, none of the other differences would even register as anything more than incidental, and having white or black skin would be of no more importance than having blond or brown hair. But foreignness, i.e. the felt incompatibility between two natures, is a decisive and inwardly felt experience in every life. The racelessness favored by the cosmopolitans has nothing to do with a blending of skin tones, but is rather the championing of the undifferentiated and completely pliable will of a rootless urban humanity, for which the possibility of consensus exists only for practical questions of the grossest kind, and which is ironically the mirror image of the very Darwinism embraced by the race realists.

    If you consider yourself a realist and also a Darwinist, then you are ignorant. That is not to say that you are not intelligent; you may be very bright, well read, have a high IQ, and all that. But you have clearly not worked through the cultural, biological, physical, and metaphysical implications of your beliefs with any sort of consistency. Only the real essentialism of Aristotle, deepened by 2,000 years of Western Christianity, can provide the basis for articulating real racial differences that do not result in absurdities. If we do not begin with a genuine understanding of reality, there is no hope.

    The mental is based on the physical, not vice-versa.

    This is called “materialism” by adepts of idealist philosophy, but actual materialism dispenses with the assumption of consciousness altogether, while the actual position of Darwinists and such is that matter and consciousness both exist (no monism) but consciousness is ontologically subordinate to matter (fundamentaly harmoniously; thus no dualism). (What would one be conscious of, prior to there being nothing to be conscious of save the workings of consciousness itself, which on this theory has no object? Matter must come first.)

    Idealism is secularized magic: some big spirit in the sky thought everything up. The alternative is not the other prevalent form of secularized magic known as the Big Bang, rather, it’s the recognition that nothing but the forms of matter are subject to creation and destruction; matter itself exists eternally. The assumption that it must come into being (ex Deus or ex nihilo) is primitive thinking. Existence itself has no beginning and no end; and matter is subordinate to consciousness else there is nothing on which the project of being conscious can begin.

    >>> “Indeed, the fact that HBDers must ultimately rest their case on the vanishingly small dissimilarities in the statistical distribution of DNA sequences among races is an embarrassment and a confession of the weakness of their entire position.”

    Small differences in molecular structure mark off various elements. Wouldn’t you prefer sugar in your tea to plutonium?

    But it’s no use discussing scientific matters with an idealist–someone who starts from the premise of “Will” (whim) as the fundamental stratum of reality. It’s like trying to argue with a Sunni Muslim about jihad. The comeback is always, “Allah (the Cosmic Consciousness) WILLS it so.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @The True and Original David
    * s/b "and consciousness is subordinate to matter else there is nothing on which the project of being conscious can begin."

    Apologies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @vinteuil
    Thanks for this. Should've known that I couldn't trust an "anthropologist" to get the basic facts right.

    "Across these societies, the average age at marriage for females is only 13.8..."

    Wow - that's the average?

    So Roy Moore was selecting females much older than average for mating?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @TheJester
    So, it appears that our hunter-gatherer forebearers were egalitarian ... I mean communalists ... I mean communists.

    Therefore, communism and other leftist social and economic systems are grounded in human nature. This is science, you know. End of discussion.

    However, like iSteve, one question plagues me. If they were "hunter-gatherer" societies, how did they decide who "hunted" and who "gathered"? I get it, the men stayed behind to forage for berries and care for infants while the women traipsed into the wild to fend off hostile tribes and hunt large game in order to celebrate their newfound equality and provide a positive example for all future generations of women. (But who nursed the infants? A malformed and malicious question ... let's not go there!)

    Therefore, feminism is also grounded in human nature. This is science, you know. End of discussion.

    I like this new "science". It is so easy to digest. One could memorize all of the first principles and plow through the entire pedagogy in five minutes. All one needs to know is what is politically correct and what isn't. If a scientific thesis supports what is politically correct, it is "fact-based". If it is not politically correct, it is a "hate fact". Hateful facts are not allowed because they are evil ... in fact, they are crimes.

    Did I get this right? Do they print this stuff in Scientific American?

    Did I get this right? Do they print this stuff in Scientific American?

    You did. Welcome to our glorious Soviet Future ™.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @james wilson
    From the journals of Lewis a Clark alone it is clear that hunter-gatherer societies cannot be forced into the mold of Horgan's daydreams. Reading the journals it could be seen that females embraced their subservient roles, but that would count as one of Horgan's much feared unfortunate consequences of examining the facts.

    Good call. The journals say that the Mandan men treated their women as perfect slaves.

    Anyway, this guy needs to go live as a hunter-gatherer for a year or so in the interests of primary research. Even with modern technology I’d wager he’d barely make it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @The True and Original David
    As a standard-issue man, I maintain the eyebrow rule. No romance with any woman taller than my eyebrows.

    Sorry, ladies.

    Why? Are you afraid she’s going to beat you up?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @vinteuil
    "except for that whole hunter-gatherer part"

    How sad is it that these folks just don't get the joke?

    It is sad…but a fact: liberals lost their sense of humor in the early 90′s. They clutch at pearls every day, now, and are like scent dogs tracking sexism/racism/isms. Horgan is just pissed off because Steve mildly, bitch-slapped Horgan, who deserved it.

    Horgan is all offended and all…like a girl! As a woman, I can honestly say no man has ever oppressed me or kept me from doing anything I want to do. However, I was called an ice queen; intense; a ball buster, and super competitive…often by women! I never bought into the “everything is sexism” thing that was sold to women in the 70′s. And, I have taught my sons how to behave like gentlemen, and, to look for women that are happy – the most important thing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Horgan writes:

    Studies suggest that our pre-civilization ancestors, who were nomadic hunter-gatherers, were relatively peaceful and egalitarian. War seems to have emerged not millions of years ago but about 12,000 years ago when our ancestors started abandoning their nomadic ways and settling down.

    Obvious bullshit.
    Warfare between Australian aboriginal tribes is pretty common: http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2013/05/the-long-bloody-history-of-aboriginal-violence/
    Prehistoric hunter-gatherers violence: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/10000-year-old-massacre-suggests-hunter-gatherers-went-war
    Even chimp families war with each other: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  136. @The True and Original David
    The mental is based on the physical, not vice-versa.

    This is called "materialism" by adepts of idealist philosophy, but actual materialism dispenses with the assumption of consciousness altogether, while the actual position of Darwinists and such is that matter and consciousness both exist (no monism) but consciousness is ontologically subordinate to matter (fundamentaly harmoniously; thus no dualism). (What would one be conscious of, prior to there being nothing to be conscious of save the workings of consciousness itself, which on this theory has no object? Matter must come first.)

    Idealism is secularized magic: some big spirit in the sky thought everything up. The alternative is not the other prevalent form of secularized magic known as the Big Bang, rather, it's the recognition that nothing but the forms of matter are subject to creation and destruction; matter itself exists eternally. The assumption that it must come into being (ex Deus or ex nihilo) is primitive thinking. Existence itself has no beginning and no end; and matter is subordinate to consciousness else there is nothing on which the project of being conscious can begin.

    >>> "Indeed, the fact that HBDers must ultimately rest their case on the vanishingly small dissimilarities in the statistical distribution of DNA sequences among races is an embarrassment and a confession of the weakness of their entire position."

    Small differences in molecular structure mark off various elements. Wouldn't you prefer sugar in your tea to plutonium?

    But it's no use discussing scientific matters with an idealist--someone who starts from the premise of "Will" (whim) as the fundamental stratum of reality. It's like trying to argue with a Sunni Muslim about jihad. The comeback is always, "Allah (the Cosmic Consciousness) WILLS it so."

    * s/b “and consciousness is subordinate to matter else there is nothing on which the project of being conscious can begin.”

    Apologies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Simon in London
    Hunter-gatherer societies do seem to be relatively egalitarian, compared to farming societies. Of course they still have role division by sex.

    I don’t suppose the egalitarianism of hunter gatherers might have something to do with the fact that hunting and gathering is a low skill occupation that everyone does about equally well. Agriculture, on the other hand, would tend to create winners and losers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    I don’t suppose the egalitarianism of hunter gatherers might have something to do with the fact that hunting and gathering is a low skill occupation that everyone does about equally well. Agriculture, on the other hand, would tend to create winners and losers.
     
    Hunting capability--among hunter gatherers anyway--may be more equally distributed. Not sure.

    But the cause of inequality in egalitarian societies is simply that the farms/farmers are relatively fixed, so people can use violence and the threat of violence to dominate them and make them pay taxes. That's the larger seed of inequality. You get lords and serfs, nobility and peasants.
    , @Melendwyr

    hunting and gathering is a low skill occupation that everyone does about equally well.
     
    Nonsense! Hunting and gathering are tasks that humans are both well-adapted for and enjoy, and we enjoy them because they used to be vital to our survival. But they're not low-skill, as anyone who has ever attempted them without first undergoing years of training and preparation can attest.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. They’re easier to lift and swing around in my arms.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  139. @prosa123
    "If you’re killing large game, outside of very cold climates there’s no downside to sharing, as the meat will go off before a single person or family can eat it all. "

    As happened to Christopher "Into the Wild" McCandless. He shot a moose while living an isolated life in Alaska, but it wasn't cold out at the time and almost all of the meat rotted. He became severely malnourished, which was at least a major factor in his death.

    I remember being affected by the story of that poor misguided kid as presented by Krakauer. He was woefully unprepared for what he attempted to take on. On my final mountaineering trip I suffered a pretty bad case of altitude sickness, probably High Altitude Cerebral Edema from what I can gather after discussion with my doctor. I was helpless in my sleeping bag, hallucinating to the point that I was convinced my climbing partners were planning to kill me. I had an ice axe in the bag with me to defend myself.
    After thirty hours or so I started to come to my senses, but I was weak as a kitten for days.
    Something about that guy wrapping himself in a nylon shroud and laying down to die so far from his friends and family really struck a nerve with me. Terrible way to go.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Johnnymenomonic
    >Saini points out, anthropological research has revealed that hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian



    Except they weren't, and many people even on the left are starting to realize that.

    http://quillette.com/2017/12/16/romanticizing-hunter-gatherer/

    >Even in circumstances where hunters give away more of their meat than they end up receiving from others in return, good hunters tend to be accorded high status, and rewarded with more opportunities to reproduce everywhere the relationship has been studied.13 When taking into account ‘embodied wealth’ such as hunting returns and reproductive success, and ‘relational wealth’ such as the number of exchange and sharing partners, Alden Smith et al. calculated that hunter-gatherer societies have a ‘moderate’ level of inequality, roughly comparable to that of Denmark.14 While this is less inequality than most agricultural societies and nation states, it’s not quite the level of egalitarianism many have come to expect from hunter-gatherers.


    >In the realm of reproductive success, hunter-gatherers are even more unequal than modern industrialized populations, exhibiting what is called “greater reproductive skew,” with males having significantly larger variance in reproductive success than females.15 Among the Ache of Paraguay, males have over 4 times the variance in reproductive success that females do, which is one of the highest ratios recorded. This means some males end up having lots of children with different women, while a significant number of males end up having none at all. This is reflected in the fact that polygynous marriage is practiced in the majority of hunter-gatherer societies for which there are data. Across these societies, the average age at marriage for females is only 13.8, while the average age at marriage for males is 20.7.16 Rather than defending what would be considered child marriage in contemporary Western societies, anthropologists often omit mentioning this information entirely.

    >According to anthropologists Douglas Fry and Geneviève Souillac, “Nomadic forager data suggest a human predilection toward equality, including gender equality, in ethos and action,”17 yet the available data do not support this notion in the slightest. On the contrary, in 1978 Robert Tonkinson had found that, among the Mardu hunter-gatherers of Australia, “Mardu men accord themselves greater ritual responsibility, higher status, more power, and more rights than women. It is a society in which male interests generally prevail when rights are contested and in the centrally important arena of religious life.”18 Among the Hiwi of Venezuela, and the Ache of Paraguay, female infants and children are disproportionately victims of infanticide, neglect, and child homicide.19 20 It is in fact quite common in hunter-gatherer societies that are at war, or heavily reliant on male hunting for subsistence, for female infants to be habitually neglected or killed.21 22 In 1931, Knud Rasmussen recorded that, among the Netsilik Inuit, who were almost wholly reliant on male hunting and fishing, out of 96 births from parents he interviewed, 38 girls were killed (nearly 40 percent).23

    There was no equality in the hunter gatherer community aside from the inevitable equality in poverty.

    Alden Smith et al. calculated that hunter-gatherer societies have a ‘moderate’ level of inequality, roughly comparable to that of Denmark

    Egads! Denmark! Next they’ll be telling us hunter-gatherers are immigration restrictions with a high standard if living!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. I wonder if Mr. Horgan understands that articles such as this do not inspire sexual desire in females?

    Does he not notice women lift their shirts for rockers but never the likes of him?

    Read More
    • Replies: @sabril
    I am pretty confident that in his subculture, he does fine. Probably he is invited to present at conferences where he is introduced as a regular columnist for SciAm. In other words, he has a good deal of social status within his field. I can just about assure you that attractive young women regularly approach him looking for "advice."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Johnnymenomonic
    >Saini points out, anthropological research has revealed that hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian



    Except they weren't, and many people even on the left are starting to realize that.

    http://quillette.com/2017/12/16/romanticizing-hunter-gatherer/

    >Even in circumstances where hunters give away more of their meat than they end up receiving from others in return, good hunters tend to be accorded high status, and rewarded with more opportunities to reproduce everywhere the relationship has been studied.13 When taking into account ‘embodied wealth’ such as hunting returns and reproductive success, and ‘relational wealth’ such as the number of exchange and sharing partners, Alden Smith et al. calculated that hunter-gatherer societies have a ‘moderate’ level of inequality, roughly comparable to that of Denmark.14 While this is less inequality than most agricultural societies and nation states, it’s not quite the level of egalitarianism many have come to expect from hunter-gatherers.


    >In the realm of reproductive success, hunter-gatherers are even more unequal than modern industrialized populations, exhibiting what is called “greater reproductive skew,” with males having significantly larger variance in reproductive success than females.15 Among the Ache of Paraguay, males have over 4 times the variance in reproductive success that females do, which is one of the highest ratios recorded. This means some males end up having lots of children with different women, while a significant number of males end up having none at all. This is reflected in the fact that polygynous marriage is practiced in the majority of hunter-gatherer societies for which there are data. Across these societies, the average age at marriage for females is only 13.8, while the average age at marriage for males is 20.7.16 Rather than defending what would be considered child marriage in contemporary Western societies, anthropologists often omit mentioning this information entirely.

    >According to anthropologists Douglas Fry and Geneviève Souillac, “Nomadic forager data suggest a human predilection toward equality, including gender equality, in ethos and action,”17 yet the available data do not support this notion in the slightest. On the contrary, in 1978 Robert Tonkinson had found that, among the Mardu hunter-gatherers of Australia, “Mardu men accord themselves greater ritual responsibility, higher status, more power, and more rights than women. It is a society in which male interests generally prevail when rights are contested and in the centrally important arena of religious life.”18 Among the Hiwi of Venezuela, and the Ache of Paraguay, female infants and children are disproportionately victims of infanticide, neglect, and child homicide.19 20 It is in fact quite common in hunter-gatherer societies that are at war, or heavily reliant on male hunting for subsistence, for female infants to be habitually neglected or killed.21 22 In 1931, Knud Rasmussen recorded that, among the Netsilik Inuit, who were almost wholly reliant on male hunting and fishing, out of 96 births from parents he interviewed, 38 girls were killed (nearly 40 percent).23

    There was no equality in the hunter gatherer community aside from the inevitable equality in poverty.

    At the end of the nineteenth beginning of the twentieth century high status Indians in local tribes sometimes had more than one wife. I knew a few guys who came from a, ‘canoe’ wedding. Their moms had been kidnapped and forced into marriage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Actually, Saini points out, anthropological research has revealed that hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian. Hence modern gender differences are more likely to stem from discrimination and other cultural factors than from females’ alleged biological inferiority.

    Horsecrap. This kind of thing could only be written by a pansified academic who never killed so much as a frog.

    I hunted, killed, an butchered three deer last month. By myself. And let me tell you, it is a hell of a lot of work. (And that’s nothing compared to the Plains Indians spearing bison to death, and probably getting trampled half the time).

    I’m hardly Daniel Boone, but I don’t know a single woman who has ever done that, just as I have never seen a single woman do a tear-off roof job or pull a transmission out of a pickup truck or pour a concrete foundation.

    Saini and take his “anthropological research” and shove it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    You are right. These a$$holes have no idea of the physical strength and just plain endurance required for so many things, let alone skill.

    And gross!!

    I guess you gut them out and pack them in yourself? I always volunteered to gut them out but I never packed them in because that’s man’s work.

    Sometimes I’d like to time transport these organic food free range chicken, vegetarian, herbal medicine sage burning dorks to a Minnesota Sioux camp back in 1300 in the middle of January.

    Ever had one of them lecture you on gardening? They would probably faint if they ever saw one of those green tomato worms.
    , @prosa123
    "I hunted, killed, an butchered three deer last month. By myself. And let me tell you, it is a hell of a lot of work. (And that’s nothing compared to the Plains Indians spearing bison to death, and probably getting trampled half the time).
    I’m hardly Daniel Boone, but I don’t know a single woman who has ever done that"


    According to two surveys women made up 11% of hunters in the US in 2011 and 19% just two years later in 2013. While the surveys are from different sources (the US Fish & Wildlife Service in 2011, a trade group in 2013), and therefore the exact percentages may not be directly comparable, it's certain that the percentage is on the rise and is well past trivial levels.
    http://www.petersenshunting.com/hunting-culture/women-hunters-just-call-them-hunters/

    Women hunters are enough of a thing nowadays that gun makers are coming out with rifles and shotguns in women's models. These seem designed for smaller women, as most others can manage ordinary models.
    http://sportsafield.com/savage-lady-hunter/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @prosa123
    Don't forget the Plow Culture vs. Hoe Culture theory. The idea is that women fare much better in agricultural societies which focus on small-scale garden type farming with hand tools ("Hoe Cultures"), as is common in tropical areas, because they participate in food production. In Plow Cultures, agricultural societies which have larger farms and draft animals and which are more common in temperate climates, women have little or nothing to do with food production and therefore have much lower status.

    Whoever came up with Plow Culture has no idea of the amount of work everybody, men women and children had to do to run a successful farm before 1900.

    How or Garden culture is an African thing. The men don’t work at much of anything other than hunting.

    The women had to create their small farm or garden culture while having and nursing babies , building the huts, gathering material for the huts and firewood cooking and processing food and doing most of the work.

    One theory about why Africa never advanced is that it takes both men and women’s separate talents and skills to create advanced societies.

    But if the men don’t contribute their special talents and abilities, society stagnates for thousands of years.

    All societies began with brush huts. But most advanced beyond that. Africa didn’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. “Do Women Want to Be Oppressed?”

    Should read “Do Most Women Want to Be Oppressed?”

    But maybe “Do Women Want to Opprese Other Women?” I could not help but notice women love those nail salon places. I’m thinking even within hunter gatherer women there were likely class distinctions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  146. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB
    I think you mean “The rest drinking and fighting for the men, and sitting around chattering endlessly about nothing for the women.”.

    I don't think it's smart to take modern people as the template for humanity. We're products of a very specific environment, and our flaws and preoccupations weren't applicable to other cultures and other social organizations.

    Have you heard of the concept of WEIRD societies?

    It's surprising that this concept has not led to greater awareness of the illegitimacy of projection our own make up onto others.

    For instance, we've eliminated the transcendent from our lives and now we're bogged down in trivialities.

    Don't assume this was characteristic of gunter gatherers.

    You ever have a toothache and couldn’t get to a dentist for some reason? That was the state about a fourth of the population was living in all the time prior to modern medicine. I would consider that a purpose for science to serve.

    Sure, sure - although I wonder how much modern dentistry is a solution to a problem caused by modern living habits.

    Probably 90% of the miracle of modern medicine are an antidote to conditions caused by modern life.

    I love how you materialists always trot out the dentistry example - it has quite a storied pedigree.

    It is indeed your best defense, and that is sad.

    I don’t think it’s smart to take modern people as the template for humanity. We’re products of a very specific environment, and our flaws and preoccupations weren’t applicable to other cultures and other social organizations.

    Well, those are the only ones we can actually observe. Would you prefer that I take up your tactic of just sort of imaging what hunter-gatherers would do if they lived like the people in my fantasies of pre-modern paradises?

    What do modern-day hunter-gatherers do that’s any different from what I said?

    Have you heard of the concept of WEIRD societies?

    Yes. Of course.

    It’s surprising that this concept has not led to greater awareness of the illegitimacy of projection our own make up onto others.

    It’s also surprising that people still project their Rousseauian fantasies onto the noble savages.

    For instance, we’ve eliminated the transcendent from our lives and now we’re bogged down in trivialities.

    Don’t assume this was characteristic of gunter gatherers.

    Don’t assume that it’s not, either.

    If you ever read stuff like Catholic philosophy or Hindu mysticism, you’ll notice that civilized people can have very well-developed notions of “transcendance”. But you know how we got all that stuff? By having civilizations, that led to writing, which allowed people throughout time and space to expand on one another’s ideas.

    Sure, sure – although I wonder how much modern dentistry is a solution to a problem caused by modern living habits.

    Some of it, obviously. The noble savages no doubt had less tooth decay. But they still had to deal with abscesses, impacted molars, infections, and everything like that.

    And that’s just one example. When was the last time you came down with a severe case of intestinal parasites? How about hookworm? Ever get gored by an elephant tusk?

    It is indeed your best defense, and that is sad.

    Actually, my best defense would be to point out that you’re basically just making stuff up.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @AaronB
    If modern people are the only ones we can observe, that still isn't a reason to use them as a basis for making claims about humanity at large.

    That's just unscientific.

    Now, we have lots of literary and anthropological evidence that other cultures were very different than us, even our own very recent ancestors.

    In light of this, to pretend that our modern selves are a legitimate basis for generalizing about the human condition seems willfully ignorant, as if we're determined to see our own choice to become lowest common denominator humans who are defined by our primitive biology as the default human condition.

    But it's a comforting assumption that flies in the face of what we know.

    Ok, so you're saying that I'm also projecting my fantasies onto hunter-gatherers and I have no right to take you to task for doing the exact same thing.

    At least you seem to be admitting that it's stupid and silly to assume they were like us, and that's progress.

    But actually, we know a bit about hunter gatherers, and the picture is far closer to my image than yours. You should read up on the issue - it might challenge some of your cherished assumptions.

    What we do know is that modern Western culture is unique in having lost its sense of the transcendent and that this is a highly artificial process requiring the cultivation of extremely rare styles of thinking.

    The default state of mankind is to have a sense of the transcendent.

    So it doesn't make sense to suggest that primitive man was preoccupied with trivial biological realities to the extent we are, since we reached this state as the result of a long and artificial process.

    It's the crowning achievement of our civilization and the culmination of human progress until now - to discover that a base biological fact is at the bottom of all our actions.

    I have read Catholic philosophy and Hindu mysticism, and both are wonderful - first of all, much Hindu and Buddhist mysticism was oral and not literary. A fascinating article on this is Coomaraswamy "the bugbear of literacy".

    A highly literary and sophisticated civilization is hardly necessary for a high level of spirituality to flourish and in fact spirituality is opposed to complex, artificial civilizations and uphold a primitive ideal very similar to hunter gatherer conditions.

    As for modern medicine, it has its uses no doubt - but on balance, it isn't enough to justify modernity.

    And no, I wasn't making stuff up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @syonredux

    …while “alt-right pundit” Steve Sailer is an ignorant hick who is horribly sexist. Besides being horribly racist, of course.

    And horribly tall. Put him next to Robert Reich.
     
    We must all be on guard against heightism. Absorb the wisdom of Ziad Ahmed :

    Things aren’t much better for the girls. Ahmed said he recently spoke to a girl at his school who said she wanted a boyfriend who was at least six feet tall.

    ▲▼He asked her why, and she said she wanted to be able to look up into his eyes. Which sounds sweet on the surface, but the conversation led Ahmed to believe that the girl basically wanted to be looked down on. Made smaller. Made the one to be protected, not be herself. In other words, she willingly is looking to be, in some measure, less than her (eventual) boyfriend, said Ahmed.


    He added that the overall point he is trying to make is that males and females buy into prescribed roles that make it hard for anyone who doesn’t fit into them to feel comfortable about who they are. And that we’re defining ourselves in all the wrong ways.

    “People are so much more multi-dimensional than one thing,” he said. “It’s OK to be whoever you are.” …
     
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/i-for-one-welcome-our-new-shamelessly-black-exploiting-white-hating-tiger-child-overlords/?highlight=Ahmed

    You see, women who desire tall men are simply accepting sexual stereotypes about female inferiority. A WOKE woman, in contrast, would rather tower over her boyfriend....

    This kid reminds me of Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism in a way. This is the article that is the source of the tallness quote:

    https://communitynews.org/2014/08/22/princeton-teen-works-to-change-perceptions-and-prejudice/

    The sense I get from reading that is that the kid wants to stamp out stereotypes that get in the way of his being considered hot and attractive to girls. Look at the photo of him: he’s short, next to the girl, and brown skinned and dorky. If only girls were driven wild by that kind of kid! But they aren’t. So we must have some sort of revolution to change things.

    I’m not sure what the result of such a revolution would be, however. If the result is that short, brown dorks are at the top of the popularity pyramid, has anything changed, stereotype and fairness wise? If, on the other hand, hotness and popularity are gone and everyone is equal, and nobody senses any particular attraction to anyone else over some mean norm, and just randomly pairs with someone of the opposite sex, what has life become? Would that be an acceptable outcome for the kid?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    “Works to change perceptions and prejudice “ is one of those things kids have to do to get into college nowadays

    Grades and SATs are irrevalent. It’s the endless do gooder activities that get kids admitted. Note to applicants: fostering rescue dogs is more stylish than working in soup kitchens for the homeless now days.

    Those activities are getting almost as important as race in college admissions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Ivy
    Taller women would seem more likely to attend better schools, ceteris paribus. Better diets make taller undergrads, also noticed among Asian students. A casual stroll around a few campuses, encouraged if you haven't been back for a while, would show more guys around 6'2" to 6"4", paired up with coeds around 5"8"-5"10". Inflation impacts many aspects of life, HBD and beyond. The days of 5' or even 5'3" petite gals are waning as the competition is bigger.

    A casual stroll around California campuses like the one where I worked will reveal mostly 5’6 to 8 men and 5 ft to 5’4 women.

    They all seem to have straight thick black hair, very dark brown eyes. Wide cheekbones and narrow eyes. Their complexions vary from palest White to light tan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    UC Irvine? They are the most Asian of the UCs. Haven Monahan and his buds probably have cousins at Stanford, UCLA and UCSB, but not as many at Berkeley. Big 10, ACC and SEC schools would have a good representation, certainly based on selective samples observed on the field and in the stands for the bowl games. ;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @anon
    For instance, I’ve never been attracted to blonde bimbos despite the insistence of evo-psyche that I should be and have always liked hipster, artistic, or intellectual girls, and plenty of very pretty girls like soft, effeminate emo type men.

    In general though, these counter-facts are just swept under the rug because they complicate an otherwise simple narrative and provide disturbing evidence that human psychology is not just a biological machine geared to maximize survival.


    It's not a "counter-fact". It's an exception to the rule. Plenty of very pretty girls may indeed like soft, effeminate emo type men, but if you gave one of these effeminate types and one muscular body-builder type one hour each to find a mate, who do you think would have an easier time?

    It’ not a “counter-fact”. It’s an exception to the rule. Plenty of very pretty girls may indeed like soft, effeminate emo type men, but if you gave one of these effeminate types and one muscular body-builder type one hour each to find a mate, who do you think would have an easier time?

    Depends on where you go. If most of the bars in Williamsburg Brooklyn, where I live, the effeminate emo type would have a better chance.

    In Italian Bensonhurst, the muscle guy.

    Other places I’ve been to where the soft type would would do better are Sweden, Denmark, Spain, and parts of Asia.

    Only Americans like douchebags – but that isn’t an reason to project our preferences onto the world, even tho Americans seem to have a really, really hard time understanding that others may be different than them.

    Also, if you read classic literature you will find that in earlier eras Britain also preferred soft effeminate men.

    The picture is complicated and the biological substrate is just one layer that’s heavily modified by environment.

    Just because we chose to settle down in the most primitive biological substrate and pride ourselves on how tough and realistic we are shouldn’t blind us to the reality others have made other choices.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Depends on where you go. If most of the bars in Williamsburg Brooklyn, where I live, the effeminate emo type would have a better chance.

    Bars in Williamsburg are, from an evolutionary standpoiny, a very novel environment. Self-selecting, too.

    Other places I’ve been to where the soft type would would do better are Sweden, Denmark, Spain, and parts of Asia.


    Yeah? Is that why the women there give it up for semi-litrate "refugees"?

    Only Americans like douchebags – but that isn’t an reason to project our preferences onto the world, even tho Americans seem to have a really, really hard time understanding that others may be different than them.


    You know, there's quite a large gap between being healthy and physically fit and being a "douchebag", though I find it highly illuminating that you put it that way.

    Your average sensitive emo type is kind of a douchebag too, you know.

    Also, if you read classic literature you will find that in earlier eras Britain also preferred soft effeminate men.


    The upper classes did. But at that time, the only way you got to be soft and effeminate was if you were rich. A good provider, in other words. You may want to read up on some evopsych here.

    The picture is complicated and the biological substrate is just one layer that’s heavily modified by environment.


    Who exactly ever said that it wasn't?

    Just because we chose to settle down in the most primitive biological substrate and pride ourselves on how tough and realistic we are shouldn’t blind us to the reality others have made other choices.

    Strictly speaking, it's NOT another choice. Even your example was being attracted to pretentious girls with annoying glasses. That doesn't even contradict the premises of evolutionary psychology, you know. Now, if you'd said that you were attracted to women with obvious physical illnesses, or women who are clearly post-menopausal, you'd have a point. But you didn't, and even if you did, you're just one guy. Mating is largely a numbers game.

    It's like saying you don't like sweets much, so that proves that people didn't really evolve to desire hugh-calorie foods like sugar. That would be a really stupid thing to say, don't you agree? The only reason you'd ever say it is if you don't really understand the arguments about human evolution.

    Is that making any sense?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @MEH 0910
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmBG0eZpvXM

    Thanks for the Steely Dan, MEH. I did not recognize that song till the chorus. The world lost one of those 2 great musicians recently. ;-{

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @jb
    Hmm. I started out reading Horgan's article, then I followed a few links, and somehow I ended up here. I'm sure there is something to learn there about female sexuality, but I'm not sure what...

    Man, jb, I got suckered into clicking on that one … I didn’t read it thoroughly enough to tell if that was all in jest. Sex with dinosaurs sells, I guess, but notice there were no books featuring the brontosauruses – you’ve heard it before, I’m sure, but women HATE, HATE, HATE herbivores!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Horgan is becoming increasingly lefty with age, he even blasted long time liberal skeptic Michael Shermer in the same post that he attacked Steve. He is still pushing hard this idea that warfare didn’t exist in hunter-gatherer societies either, which is beyond dumb and what evidence there is completely contradicts it, so I don’t buy his no sexism argument either.

    Chagnon pointed out years ago, that men in H-G societies compete for women, instead of accumulating resources ( There is little to accumulate anyway ) and the men that kill the most men in warfare have more wives and more children than men who have never killed. A particularly successful Yanomamo tribal leader had something like 6 wives, and had numerous affairs with other women in the tribe as well. So perhaps from the modern feminist perspective it’s awesome that one woman doesn’t get to monopolize the top male, but that’s hardly sexual equality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  153. Depending on biome and season and whatnot, gathering is I think way overstated. It was pretty much just hunting. You can go gathering plant material for cordage and handles and things like that. But in most places, most of the year, and especially before selectively bred crops with increased yield and edibility, there was really only meat to eat. This is particularly true in temperate biomes, including all winter any place with a winter. They probably had a diet of 90% meat. Large amounts of nutritious plants do not just normally grow all over the place in the wilderness. Even if you find a peach tree the squirrels will probably have eaten almost all the peaches before they were ripe. Most plants you can’t really eat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Sierra Nevada Indians ate a lot of acorns, but they had to put them through a complicated process to make them edible. I wonder if hunter-gatherers hunted gathering species like squirrels that competed with them for nuts and the like?

    The Indians apparently used fire a lot to alter the environment. Perhaps some of their setting brushfires was to attack competitor species?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @anon
    I don’t think it’s smart to take modern people as the template for humanity. We’re products of a very specific environment, and our flaws and preoccupations weren’t applicable to other cultures and other social organizations.

    Well, those are the only ones we can actually observe. Would you prefer that I take up your tactic of just sort of imaging what hunter-gatherers would do if they lived like the people in my fantasies of pre-modern paradises?

    What do modern-day hunter-gatherers do that's any different from what I said?

    Have you heard of the concept of WEIRD societies?

    Yes. Of course.

    It’s surprising that this concept has not led to greater awareness of the illegitimacy of projection our own make up onto others.

    It's also surprising that people still project their Rousseauian fantasies onto the noble savages.

    For instance, we’ve eliminated the transcendent from our lives and now we’re bogged down in trivialities.

    Don’t assume this was characteristic of gunter gatherers.

    Don't assume that it's not, either.

    If you ever read stuff like Catholic philosophy or Hindu mysticism, you'll notice that civilized people can have very well-developed notions of "transcendance". But you know how we got all that stuff? By having civilizations, that led to writing, which allowed people throughout time and space to expand on one another's ideas.

    Sure, sure – although I wonder how much modern dentistry is a solution to a problem caused by modern living habits.

    Some of it, obviously. The noble savages no doubt had less tooth decay. But they still had to deal with abscesses, impacted molars, infections, and everything like that.

    And that's just one example. When was the last time you came down with a severe case of intestinal parasites? How about hookworm? Ever get gored by an elephant tusk?

    It is indeed your best defense, and that is sad.

    Actually, my best defense would be to point out that you're basically just making stuff up.

    If modern people are the only ones we can observe, that still isn’t a reason to use them as a basis for making claims about humanity at large.

    That’s just unscientific.

    Now, we have lots of literary and anthropological evidence that other cultures were very different than us, even our own very recent ancestors.

    In light of this, to pretend that our modern selves are a legitimate basis for generalizing about the human condition seems willfully ignorant, as if we’re determined to see our own choice to become lowest common denominator humans who are defined by our primitive biology as the default human condition.

    But it’s a comforting assumption that flies in the face of what we know.

    Ok, so you’re saying that I’m also projecting my fantasies onto hunter-gatherers and I have no right to take you to task for doing the exact same thing.

    At least you seem to be admitting that it’s stupid and silly to assume they were like us, and that’s progress.

    But actually, we know a bit about hunter gatherers, and the picture is far closer to my image than yours. You should read up on the issue – it might challenge some of your cherished assumptions.

    What we do know is that modern Western culture is unique in having lost its sense of the transcendent and that this is a highly artificial process requiring the cultivation of extremely rare styles of thinking.

    The default state of mankind is to have a sense of the transcendent.

    So it doesn’t make sense to suggest that primitive man was preoccupied with trivial biological realities to the extent we are, since we reached this state as the result of a long and artificial process.

    It’s the crowning achievement of our civilization and the culmination of human progress until now – to discover that a base biological fact is at the bottom of all our actions.

    I have read Catholic philosophy and Hindu mysticism, and both are wonderful – first of all, much Hindu and Buddhist mysticism was oral and not literary. A fascinating article on this is Coomaraswamy “the bugbear of literacy”.

    A highly literary and sophisticated civilization is hardly necessary for a high level of spirituality to flourish and in fact spirituality is opposed to complex, artificial civilizations and uphold a primitive ideal very similar to hunter gatherer conditions.

    As for modern medicine, it has its uses no doubt – but on balance, it isn’t enough to justify modernity.

    And no, I wasn’t making stuff up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    If modern people are the only ones we can observe, that still isn’t a reason to use them as a basis for making claims about humanity at large.

    That’s just unscientific.

    Ah. Good point. Science is about making things up about things we can't observe, to fit with our cornball agenda.

    Now, we have lots of literary and anthropological evidence that other cultures were very different than us, even our own very recent ancestors.

    Nobody denies this. However, it is quite a leap from that, to your stupid notion that all the science we do is to heal the psychic wounds we incurred when first we decided to descend from the trees.

    But it’s a comforting assumption that flies in the face of what we know.

    Pretending that human beings would be happy and transcendent all the time, if only they forgot how to farm or read is an even more comforting asumption to some, and also flies in the face of everything we know.

    But actually, we know a bit about hunter gatherers, and the picture is far closer to my image than yours. You should read up on the issue – it might challenge some of your cherished assumptions.

    I have, and you're simply wrong. You are reading Rousseauian BS.

    The default state of mankind is to have a sense of the transcendent.

    And I assume you have evidence for this?

    So it doesn’t make sense to suggest that primitive man was preoccupied with trivial biological realities to the extent we are, since we reached this state as the result of a long and artificial process.

    Actually, it makes total sense, when you look at chimpanzees, who spend their time obsessed with trivialities, when they're not raping each other or tyrying to kill members of enemy groups.

    As for modern medicine, it has its uses no doubt – but on balance, it isn’t enough to justify modernity.

    So why aren't you off living in the jungle, then? Who's stopping you? Why do you choose to live in one of the most modern cities in one of the most modern societies in the world? You could even just build a shack out in the country, but you don't.

    And no, I wasn't making stuff up.

    Technically, I suppose that's true. You were reading a bunch of crap by nineteenth-centurty authors who were making stuff up.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Alice
    Nothing more frustrating than trying to study a new field (to myself) such as archaeology, and finding even the intro Great Courses type stuff is so corrupted by Marxism that the field can't see straight.

    Listen to archaeologists and you hear that h-g were more egalitarian because the past was Eden before the State came along. They know it was more egalitarian because pre-state, they didn't find evidence of massive wealth disparity in the detritus they uncover at a given site. Qed.

    And h-g societies don't have evidence of a state because all evidence is interpreted to show how egalitarian they are. Then they mention early archaeology sites have places where grain was stored--too much for an individual family. But that must not have been an example of a state because they were communal cultures, and hence storing things communally.

    What hogwash!

    My neighborhood suburban subdevelopment has no friggen wealth disparity. Proof of what, exactly? And there no evidence of the state here except in my kids' piggy banks, which are obviously evidence of a suidael religious cult. In fact, I'm pretty sure an archaeologist would look at our trash and decide we live in a country run by the fertility god-dictator named Amazon, as symbolized by the phallic symbols on his boxes, who maintained centralized control of the means of all production.

    The best archaeologist of the late bronze age is a classics professor named Eric Cline who is happy to make fun of archaeology. Even author David Macaulay made terrific fun of them in Motel of the Mysteries.

    In fact, I’m pretty sure an archaeologist would look at our trash and decide we live in a country run by the fertility god-dictator named Amazon, as symbolized by the phallic symbols on his boxes, who maintained centralized control of the means of all production.

    Funny stuff (whole comment, I mean), Alice. People were saying that what that Amazon appendage “swoosh” looked like as soon as it came out in 2000 or so, I recall.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @dearieme
    "Watson and Crick got the Nobel Prize for discovering DNA": not exactly. They deduced its structure, which immediately implied its working principle. Knowledge of its existence was old hat.

    I'm trying to think of anything else post (say) 1950/60 that was a big deal. Integrated circuits? Plate Tectonics as an explanation for how Continental Drift happens was an advance, though you might say it was a minor one since everybody with anything between the ears had already accepted that Continental Drift happened. Perhaps a bit harsh.

    How about the working of the immune system? Was that solved before 1950? Anything profound in molecular biology and genetics? I know of a chap who gave up Theoretical Chemistry in the 6os because "it has all been done". Come to think of it, there has been a dramatic advance in the understanding of the life of trees in woodland. Bolt-from-the-blue advance, but in a deeply unfashionable field of course; it has none of the glitz that theoretical physicists used to claim for themselves. I suppose the antics of "environmentalists" have given serious ecological science a bad name. Similarly the no-account field of archaeology has been hugely advanced by the combination of pollen studies, carbon dating, dendrochronology, plus other dating methods. Has the advance finished though?

    even the new hotness, “deep learning neural networks,” was basically elucidated in the 40s (with the seminal backpropagation learning algorithm developed in the mid-70s). everything old is new again!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “…Prehistoric hunter-gatherers violence:”

    “5,500-Year-Old Wooden Clubs Were Deadly Weapons”, Megan Gannon, Live Science, December 8, 2017:

    “… Archaeologists in the United Kingdom are turning to forensic methods to understand violence in the Neolithic period.

    In experiments described in the journal Antiquity yesterday (Dec. 7), researchers used a replica of a 5,500-year-old wooden club to see what kind of damage they could inflict on a model of a human head. They found that such clubs were indeed lethal weapons

    …Archaeologists have found ample evidence of violence in Western and Central Europe during the Neolithic period, through burials of people who had skull fractures—some healed, some were fatal —from an intentional blow to the head. But it was often unclear where these injuries came from…

    …”No one was trying to identify why there was blunt-force trauma in the period,”… “We realized we needed to start looking at weapons.”…

    …a replica of a Neolithic wooden club found known as the Thames beater…. has been carbon dated to 3530-3340 B.C…

    …resulting fractures resembled injuries seen in the real Neolithic skulls. One fracture pattern closely matched a skull from the 5200 B.C. massacre site of Asparn/Schletz in Austria, where archaeologists had previously speculated that wooden clubs might have been used…

    …The Thames beater, for instance, “very clearly is lethal,”…

    …direct blows can result in linear fractures, and previously, such fractures had usually been attributed to falls…”

    “Study links Neolithic weapons to injuries”, University of Edinburgh, 7 December, 2017:

    “…it is possible to identify blunt force weapons from the European Neolithic by injuries left…

    …’This is the first study of its kind to demonstrate that it is possible to identify blunt force weapons from the European Neolithic, and provides valuable insight into violent interactions and the social complexities of human prehistory.’ …”

    “Understanding blunt force trauma and violence in Neolithic Europe: The first experiments using a skin-skull-brain model and the Thames Beater”, Meaghan Dyer and Linda Fibiger, Antiquity, 6 Dec 2017 (contains link to paper):

    “…The presence of conflict-related blunt force cranial trauma in the British and European Neolithic has been firmly established in recent population studies… A replica of the Thames Beater, a Neolithic wooden club, was able to produce fractures in synthetic skulls with remarkable comparisons to Neolithic skeletal remains from Asparn/Schletz, a massacre site in Austria…”

    Here is a pic of the Thames Beater and its replica. It looks like a modern baseball bat, but maybe about 6 inches shorter and about half-again as wide on the striking end.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  158. Look, part of understanding these people is that the discovery of the truth has nothing to do with their occupation, and they are conscious of that fact. Thoroughgoing cynicism is just a fact of life in a world that depends so utterly on favoritism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  159. @Stephen Marle II
    This kid reminds me of Sailer's Law of Female Journalism in a way. This is the article that is the source of the tallness quote:

    https://communitynews.org/2014/08/22/princeton-teen-works-to-change-perceptions-and-prejudice/

    The sense I get from reading that is that the kid wants to stamp out stereotypes that get in the way of his being considered hot and attractive to girls. Look at the photo of him: he's short, next to the girl, and brown skinned and dorky. If only girls were driven wild by that kind of kid! But they aren't. So we must have some sort of revolution to change things.

    I'm not sure what the result of such a revolution would be, however. If the result is that short, brown dorks are at the top of the popularity pyramid, has anything changed, stereotype and fairness wise? If, on the other hand, hotness and popularity are gone and everyone is equal, and nobody senses any particular attraction to anyone else over some mean norm, and just randomly pairs with someone of the opposite sex, what has life become? Would that be an acceptable outcome for the kid?

    “Works to change perceptions and prejudice “ is one of those things kids have to do to get into college nowadays

    Grades and SATs are irrevalent. It’s the endless do gooder activities that get kids admitted. Note to applicants: fostering rescue dogs is more stylish than working in soup kitchens for the homeless now days.

    Those activities are getting almost as important as race in college admissions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Grades and SATs are irrevalent.
     
    Occam's razor suggests that they are anything but. The entire point of the enterprise is denying opportunity to those who might be most dangerous to those who currently enjoy illegitimate power. All the do-gooder/diversity window dressing serves merely to provide plausible deniability.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @anon
    For instance, I’ve never been attracted to blonde bimbos despite the insistence of evo-psyche that I should be and have always liked hipster, artistic, or intellectual girls, and plenty of very pretty girls like soft, effeminate emo type men.

    In general though, these counter-facts are just swept under the rug because they complicate an otherwise simple narrative and provide disturbing evidence that human psychology is not just a biological machine geared to maximize survival.


    It's not a "counter-fact". It's an exception to the rule. Plenty of very pretty girls may indeed like soft, effeminate emo type men, but if you gave one of these effeminate types and one muscular body-builder type one hour each to find a mate, who do you think would have an easier time?

    The emo guy would do better among pretty women over the age of 20 in most of the U. S. Upper class women, who make up the majority of attractive women due to the obesity epidemic ruining the lower classes, would definitely pick the sensitive emo guy over the roidhead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    No offense, but I have seen, with my own eyes, evidence that this is not the case.

    I realize that women have this image of themselves that says they're attracted to sensitive creeps, but that's a little like me pretending to like classical music. It's just sort of a pretense to make myself seem classier. Deep down, I know I'm not fooling anyone.

    Now you might say that a fit, lean guy would do better than someone bulked up with useless muscle, but that's the same thing, really. Physical health is a sign of reproductive fitness. But either one of those guys would do better than some mopey jerk with painted nails.
    , @anon
    Upper class women, who make up the majority of attractive women due to the obesity epidemic ruining the lower classes, would definitely pick the sensitive emo guy over the roidhead.

    It's also probably worth asking who tends to have more kids? Upper-class women or lower-class ones? Who is more likely to end up passing on her genes?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Alden
    A casual stroll around California campuses like the one where I worked will reveal mostly 5’6 to 8 men and 5 ft to 5’4 women.

    They all seem to have straight thick black hair, very dark brown eyes. Wide cheekbones and narrow eyes. Their complexions vary from palest White to light tan.

    UC Irvine? They are the most Asian of the UCs. Haven Monahan and his buds probably have cousins at Stanford, UCLA and UCSB, but not as many at Berkeley. Big 10, ACC and SEC schools would have a good representation, certainly based on selective samples observed on the field and in the stands for the bowl games. ;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Lars Porsena
    Depending on biome and season and whatnot, gathering is I think way overstated. It was pretty much just hunting. You can go gathering plant material for cordage and handles and things like that. But in most places, most of the year, and especially before selectively bred crops with increased yield and edibility, there was really only meat to eat. This is particularly true in temperate biomes, including all winter any place with a winter. They probably had a diet of 90% meat. Large amounts of nutritious plants do not just normally grow all over the place in the wilderness. Even if you find a peach tree the squirrels will probably have eaten almost all the peaches before they were ripe. Most plants you can't really eat.

    Sierra Nevada Indians ate a lot of acorns, but they had to put them through a complicated process to make them edible. I wonder if hunter-gatherers hunted gathering species like squirrels that competed with them for nuts and the like?

    The Indians apparently used fire a lot to alter the environment. Perhaps some of their setting brushfires was to attack competitor species?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    Using fire on the squirrels, I will have to try that one next year and get back to you.

    I know the Great Lakes indians got several sources of food from cattails which grow in thick stands everywhere alongside ponds and ditches, including making a bread from the starch in the roots. So I suppose significant gathering happened. I would still expect way higher than modern levels of meat though.
    , @Neil Templeton
    Better to let the squirrels do the gathering and raid their nut caches for easy gotten booty. ASFAIK the natives used fire to thin out the overstory and encourage new growth for their favored prey specie. This trick is ancient and used by hunters, herders, and farmers the world over. Also helps to rid the ground of pests, especially in the case of farmed plots that are used for the same crops year after year.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @Intelligent Dasein
    It is deeply indicative of the benighted nature of this whole discussion that Horgan is able to simply toss out statements like "in light of the fact that we are the products of natural selection," and this premise is accepted without further ado by friend and foe alike as the self-evident (and, since it is never even examined, entirely superfluous) antecedent material by which the debate is framed. Until this ridiculous situation is amended, there will never be any traction gained by anyone arguing for any sort of "realism" in those studies concerned with the nature of man.

    For evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, and all such cognate derivative disciplines are, like all things Darwinian, completely incapable of furnishing any proof as to the truth or falsity of statements concerning human nature, one way or the other. "Proof" for the Darwinian consists in so arranging a pictorial presentation of a selection of quite varied and discrepant facts so as to conform to his mechanical-causal scheme for explaining all aspects of living reality. Darwinism is therefore a method and not a result. The Darwinist reads his theory into nature, not out of it. Anything whatsoever can be "Darwinized,"meaning that it can be explained as the outcome of a selection process perfectly in accordance with the scheme; and the truth of this explanation is thereafter accepted due solely to the unquestioned faith placed in the method, without regard to the qualitative nature of the assertion or the particular facts presented. Therefore any debate about human nature which accepts Darwinism as a premise is incapable of resolution and descends ultimately into the mere clash of opinions and preferences, in which one's involved personal inclinations play the dominant role.

    Confusingly, the "race realists" of today are content to be but one more insignificant voice in this meaningless debate, when the logical implications of their own position, as well as their only hopes of political success, necessitate them rising out of it. In truth, anyone calling himself a race realist ought to be the very last person touting the merits of Darwinism, but this has been completely misunderstood due to the appalling lack of intellectual rigor that prevails among them. Moreover, one gets the impression that the Darwinism of the race realists is clung to with such tenacity simply because they believe it to justify their realist beliefs, that Darwinism in itself is neither understood nor appreciated in its depths, and that there would be little reason for mentioning it at all were it not for the imprimatur it seemed to confer upon their political leanings.

    But the implication that Darwinism actually establishes race realism is entirely backwards. If evolutionary theory were actually true, then there would be no "race" whatsoever to speak of, and consequently "race realism" would be an oxymoron and the very groundless conceit of bigots that the Left accuses it of being. On the Darwinian reading there are nothing but transitional forms, a swarming mass of incoherent and undifferentiated life; no race, no definition, no species. The unquestioned sexual compatibility among the various human races renders the whole idea absurd even on an evolutionary model; and the oft-cited analogy between human races and differing breeds of dog, horse, or other domesticated animals would tend to support the notion that acculturation and training were more important in human development than mere differences in ancestry as such. Indeed, the fact that HBDers must ultimately rest their case on the vanishingly small dissimilarities in the statistical distribution of DNA sequences among races is an embarrassment and a confession of the weakness of their entire position.

    Among human beings, race is primarily an affiliation of the affections and the understanding and not of the body. The "real" differences between the races, therefore, must be looked for in the will rather than the biology of the individual. The will, being an aspect of the soul (i.e. the substantial form) is the prime phenomenon, the essence of the man. Far from being the ephemeral will-o-the-wisp, the coincidental conglomeration of social patterns and "memes" that modern psychology holds it to be, it is precisely here that all real and essential human differences reside. Where this not the case, none of the other differences would even register as anything more than incidental, and having white or black skin would be of no more importance than having blond or brown hair. But foreignness, i.e. the felt incompatibility between two natures, is a decisive and inwardly felt experience in every life. The racelessness favored by the cosmopolitans has nothing to do with a blending of skin tones, but is rather the championing of the undifferentiated and completely pliable will of a rootless urban humanity, for which the possibility of consensus exists only for practical questions of the grossest kind, and which is ironically the mirror image of the very Darwinism embraced by the race realists.

    If you consider yourself a realist and also a Darwinist, then you are ignorant. That is not to say that you are not intelligent; you may be very bright, well read, have a high IQ, and all that. But you have clearly not worked through the cultural, biological, physical, and metaphysical implications of your beliefs with any sort of consistency. Only the real essentialism of Aristotle, deepened by 2,000 years of Western Christianity, can provide the basis for articulating real racial differences that do not result in absurdities. If we do not begin with a genuine understanding of reality, there is no hope.

    Best commenter on this blog, you guys should listen to him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @prosa123
    "If you’re killing large game, outside of very cold climates there’s no downside to sharing, as the meat will go off before a single person or family can eat it all. "

    As happened to Christopher "Into the Wild" McCandless. He shot a moose while living an isolated life in Alaska, but it wasn't cold out at the time and almost all of the meat rotted. He became severely malnourished, which was at least a major factor in his death.

    “If you’re killing large game, outside of very cold climates there’s no downside to sharing, as the meat will go off before a single person or family can eat it all. ”

    Couldn’t they make it into pemmican or something?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @dearieme
    "scientists today are mere refiners, extenders and applyers of the great revelations of past eras’ scientists." Fundamental physics has been stuck since the 70s. The Golden Age of medicine is long past. Have there been revolutionary advances elsewhere? Even if not, wouldn't substantial extensions and applications be pretty important things?

    As you can see, I agree with you at least half way. At least.

    Fundamental physics has been stuck since the 70s. The Golden Age of medicine is long past. Have there been revolutionary advances elsewhere?

    The Physics block seems to be the case.

    But Medicine? Not my field, but this seems completely wrong. Yeah, we haven’t had anything with the sheer impact of antibiotics and getting vacines for the serious viral diseases.

    But medicine has been continually improving during my life in things like cancer treatment, heart disease treatment, joint replacements, micro/robo-surgery and–more debateable because of much of questionable utility–drugs. And we understand a whole lot more of microbiology and celluar processes. Lifespans and ability to live into old age with a decent quality of life have improved markedly.

    I told my family–target my kids–back in 2000 that this could be “the biological century”. All the new genomic science and improved understanding of celluar biochemistry has the potentially to absolutely revolutionize medicine, going beyond the sort of patch and repair to tackling issues like aging. It’s not impossible we’re on the cusp–during my kid’s lives–of dramatic improvements in overall health and lifespan.

    I’d agree that physics seems sort of “figured out” except for final “this is the math for why this is”. We sort of basically know how the universe works.

    But while we already know about the major organ systems and roughly how cells function, there’s just a whole lot we don’t understand about the human body and how it works.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I wonder if hunter-gatherers hunted gathering species like squirrels that competed with them for nuts and the like?

    “New Year’s Resolution: Eat More Squirrel in 2015″, Elka Karl, Modern Farmer, December 23, 2014:

    “…Squirrel may win the title as the most American of dishes. Squirrel sustained this country’s earliest settlers and was commonly found on the 19th century menus of the grandest of hotels — even the White House. President William Henry Harrison listed Squirrel Burgoo — a thick meat and vegetable stew — as one of his favorite foods, while famously finicky eater James Garfield gave squirrel soup his highest praise.

    Up until 1975, The Joy of Cooking included an illustration and description of proper squirrel skinning within its pages. But in the past four decades, squirrel cuisine has dwindled to a rarity, even among hunting families. While eating gray squirrel was a staple of this writer’s childhood diet, when I ate pulled barbecue squirrel five years ago at a Christmas Eve dinner, it was more of a novelty than a menu staple. And that’s unfortunate…

    …squirrels are the most popular small game quarry with 1.7 million hunters stalking squirrels, according to the 2011 National Survey…”

    Tree squirrel, as food:

    “…In many areas of the US squirrels are still hunted for food…

    …In 1997, doctors in Kentucky warned of possible hazards from eating squirrel brains, which are considered a folk delicacy in the region. In western parts of the state, the doctors found a greatly elevated human incidence of Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, a rarely seen but serious prion-based disorder that causes dementia and eventual death. So-called “mad squirrel disease” can be difficult to distinguish from the usual behavior of squirrels, but could be more prevalent among roadkilled animals. …”

    Is that mad squirrel disease or are those zombies closing in?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  167. @Dr. X

    Actually, Saini points out, anthropological research has revealed that hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian. Hence modern gender differences are more likely to stem from discrimination and other cultural factors than from females’ alleged biological inferiority.
     
    Horsecrap. This kind of thing could only be written by a pansified academic who never killed so much as a frog.

    I hunted, killed, an butchered three deer last month. By myself. And let me tell you, it is a hell of a lot of work. (And that's nothing compared to the Plains Indians spearing bison to death, and probably getting trampled half the time).

    I'm hardly Daniel Boone, but I don't know a single woman who has ever done that, just as I have never seen a single woman do a tear-off roof job or pull a transmission out of a pickup truck or pour a concrete foundation.

    Saini and take his "anthropological research" and shove it.

    You are right. These a$$holes have no idea of the physical strength and just plain endurance required for so many things, let alone skill.

    And gross!!

    I guess you gut them out and pack them in yourself? I always volunteered to gut them out but I never packed them in because that’s man’s work.

    Sometimes I’d like to time transport these organic food free range chicken, vegetarian, herbal medicine sage burning dorks to a Minnesota Sioux camp back in 1300 in the middle of January.

    Ever had one of them lecture you on gardening? They would probably faint if they ever saw one of those green tomato worms.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB
    It' not a “counter-fact”. It’s an exception to the rule. Plenty of very pretty girls may indeed like soft, effeminate emo type men, but if you gave one of these effeminate types and one muscular body-builder type one hour each to find a mate, who do you think would have an easier time?

    Depends on where you go. If most of the bars in Williamsburg Brooklyn, where I live, the effeminate emo type would have a better chance.

    In Italian Bensonhurst, the muscle guy.

    Other places I've been to where the soft type would would do better are Sweden, Denmark, Spain, and parts of Asia.

    Only Americans like douchebags - but that isn't an reason to project our preferences onto the world, even tho Americans seem to have a really, really hard time understanding that others may be different than them.

    Also, if you read classic literature you will find that in earlier eras Britain also preferred soft effeminate men.

    The picture is complicated and the biological substrate is just one layer that's heavily modified by environment.

    Just because we chose to settle down in the most primitive biological substrate and pride ourselves on how tough and realistic we are shouldn't blind us to the reality others have made other choices.

    Depends on where you go. If most of the bars in Williamsburg Brooklyn, where I live, the effeminate emo type would have a better chance.

    Bars in Williamsburg are, from an evolutionary standpoiny, a very novel environment. Self-selecting, too.

    Other places I’ve been to where the soft type would would do better are Sweden, Denmark, Spain, and parts of Asia.

    Yeah? Is that why the women there give it up for semi-litrate “refugees”?

    Only Americans like douchebags – but that isn’t an reason to project our preferences onto the world, even tho Americans seem to have a really, really hard time understanding that others may be different than them.

    You know, there’s quite a large gap between being healthy and physically fit and being a “douchebag”, though I find it highly illuminating that you put it that way.

    Your average sensitive emo type is kind of a douchebag too, you know.

    Also, if you read classic literature you will find that in earlier eras Britain also preferred soft effeminate men.

    The upper classes did. But at that time, the only way you got to be soft and effeminate was if you were rich. A good provider, in other words. You may want to read up on some evopsych here.

    The picture is complicated and the biological substrate is just one layer that’s heavily modified by environment.

    Who exactly ever said that it wasn’t?

    Just because we chose to settle down in the most primitive biological substrate and pride ourselves on how tough and realistic we are shouldn’t blind us to the reality others have made other choices.

    Strictly speaking, it’s NOT another choice. Even your example was being attracted to pretentious girls with annoying glasses. That doesn’t even contradict the premises of evolutionary psychology, you know. Now, if you’d said that you were attracted to women with obvious physical illnesses, or women who are clearly post-menopausal, you’d have a point. But you didn’t, and even if you did, you’re just one guy. Mating is largely a numbers game.

    It’s like saying you don’t like sweets much, so that proves that people didn’t really evolve to desire hugh-calorie foods like sugar. That would be a really stupid thing to say, don’t you agree? The only reason you’d ever say it is if you don’t really understand the arguments about human evolution.

    Is that making any sense?

    Read More
    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Well, I think if a significantly large minority doesn't have preferences that can be explained through evopsyche, then that is a serious challenge to the theory.

    Genetic mutations can perhaps account for a some freaks
    but not whole sections of the population.

    Evo psyche distinguishes between good providers and sexy alphas - soft effeminate types featured as sexy male archetypes in the popular imagination of the era. So it wasn't about bring a good provider.

    If my sexual attraction to women isn't limited to signs of fertility, but responds to factors that can have no biological significance, then this is a serious challenge to the theory that we are entirely products of our biology, if many men share my strange outlook, which they do.

    We cannot all be genetic freaks - that would be specual pleading to shore up a tottering theory.

    Who says it isn't complicated? Most people who believe in evopsyche say we are simple products of our biology, and that all our actions can be explained in darwinian terms.

    What I am saying is that while that has some truth, it is a simplistic one dimensional model of the human psyche that conflicts with too many known facts to be taken seriously.

    Real world observations show that human conduct departs dramatically from biological expectations.

    The idea that we are simple fitness maximizing machines is a wish-fulfillment fantasy that appeals to undeveloped modern minds.

    The biological substrate is real, but to choose to see only that is self-inflicted stupidity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @prosa123
    "If you’re killing large game, outside of very cold climates there’s no downside to sharing, as the meat will go off before a single person or family can eat it all. "

    As happened to Christopher "Into the Wild" McCandless. He shot a moose while living an isolated life in Alaska, but it wasn't cold out at the time and almost all of the meat rotted. He became severely malnourished, which was at least a major factor in his death.

    I read that book. As I remember he was inspired by all the books he read about primitive life.

    Poor kid, he learned why primitive peoples were so few.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @S. Anonyia
    The emo guy would do better among pretty women over the age of 20 in most of the U. S. Upper class women, who make up the majority of attractive women due to the obesity epidemic ruining the lower classes, would definitely pick the sensitive emo guy over the roidhead.

    No offense, but I have seen, with my own eyes, evidence that this is not the case.

    I realize that women have this image of themselves that says they’re attracted to sensitive creeps, but that’s a little like me pretending to like classical music. It’s just sort of a pretense to make myself seem classier. Deep down, I know I’m not fooling anyone.

    Now you might say that a fit, lean guy would do better than someone bulked up with useless muscle, but that’s the same thing, really. Physical health is a sign of reproductive fitness. But either one of those guys would do better than some mopey jerk with painted nails.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @dearieme
    "Watson and Crick got the Nobel Prize for discovering DNA": not exactly. They deduced its structure, which immediately implied its working principle. Knowledge of its existence was old hat.

    I'm trying to think of anything else post (say) 1950/60 that was a big deal. Integrated circuits? Plate Tectonics as an explanation for how Continental Drift happens was an advance, though you might say it was a minor one since everybody with anything between the ears had already accepted that Continental Drift happened. Perhaps a bit harsh.

    How about the working of the immune system? Was that solved before 1950? Anything profound in molecular biology and genetics? I know of a chap who gave up Theoretical Chemistry in the 6os because "it has all been done". Come to think of it, there has been a dramatic advance in the understanding of the life of trees in woodland. Bolt-from-the-blue advance, but in a deeply unfashionable field of course; it has none of the glitz that theoretical physicists used to claim for themselves. I suppose the antics of "environmentalists" have given serious ecological science a bad name. Similarly the no-account field of archaeology has been hugely advanced by the combination of pollen studies, carbon dating, dendrochronology, plus other dating methods. Has the advance finished though?

    I’m trying to think of anything else post (say) 1950/60 that was a big deal … How about the working of the immune system? Was that solved before 1950? Anything profound in molecular biology and genetics?

    Figuring out (well, mostly) the immune system is obviously a huge deal and was the result of long line of incremental advances during, roughly, 1975-2005. It is now starting to pay off: monoclonal antibodies as drugs, CAR-T therapy for cancer.

    Other pretty profound things that we now mostly understand:
    - Molecular mechanisms of cell division/cell cycle
    - Molecular mechanisms underlying all kinds of sensation
    - Molecular mechanisms of motility
    - Molecular mechanisms of information flow in the entire chain of DNA-to-DNA-to-RNA-to-protein
    - Cell senescence
    - Molecular mechanisms of cell to cell communication

    These are all things that define how living things live. Obviously the structure of DNA was important but thinking that nothing of similar importance happened after that seems pretty ignorant. E.g., it took a whole decade after the 1953 to figure out the genetic code.

    Then there are enabler things that are/will be as important as transistors turned out to be: PCR, nucleic acid sequencing, recombinant nucleic acids technologies.

    Consciousness and are big deals that have yet to be cracked.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    ... Consciousness and protein folding are ...
    , @Almost Missouri

    "Obviously the structure of DNA was important but thinking that nothing of similar importance happened after that seems pretty ignorant. E.g., it took a whole decade after the 1953 to figure out the genetic code. Then there are enabler things that are/will be as important as transistors turned out to be: PCR, nucleic acid sequencing, recombinant nucleic acids technologies."
     
    Allowing that "discovering DNA" is shorthand for "determining the structure of DNA and all the consequences and refinements that inevitably follow in train", what of "similar importance" has happened since?

    I used to read pitches for startup businesses seeking financing. All the biotech startups implied they could eventually lead to a cure for cancer. All the electronic startups claimed to be enabling the next transistor/IC chip-level breakthrough. Number that actually achieved these lofty goals? Zero. Number that will achieve such goals, from any source, in my lifetime? Also zero.

    "Consciousness and are big deals that have yet to be cracked."
     
    Yeah, we've been working on that one for at least 3000 years. No significant progress since Aristotle... .

    I understand that people who accomplish something technical or scientific nowadays tend to be specialists, and that by definition specialists need to look very closely at very specific things. This can lead to a loss of perspective. When your world is one twig on one branch on one tree in the forest, you may not notice that despite your success with the twig, the forest is still there.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB
    If modern people are the only ones we can observe, that still isn't a reason to use them as a basis for making claims about humanity at large.

    That's just unscientific.

    Now, we have lots of literary and anthropological evidence that other cultures were very different than us, even our own very recent ancestors.

    In light of this, to pretend that our modern selves are a legitimate basis for generalizing about the human condition seems willfully ignorant, as if we're determined to see our own choice to become lowest common denominator humans who are defined by our primitive biology as the default human condition.

    But it's a comforting assumption that flies in the face of what we know.

    Ok, so you're saying that I'm also projecting my fantasies onto hunter-gatherers and I have no right to take you to task for doing the exact same thing.

    At least you seem to be admitting that it's stupid and silly to assume they were like us, and that's progress.

    But actually, we know a bit about hunter gatherers, and the picture is far closer to my image than yours. You should read up on the issue - it might challenge some of your cherished assumptions.

    What we do know is that modern Western culture is unique in having lost its sense of the transcendent and that this is a highly artificial process requiring the cultivation of extremely rare styles of thinking.

    The default state of mankind is to have a sense of the transcendent.

    So it doesn't make sense to suggest that primitive man was preoccupied with trivial biological realities to the extent we are, since we reached this state as the result of a long and artificial process.

    It's the crowning achievement of our civilization and the culmination of human progress until now - to discover that a base biological fact is at the bottom of all our actions.

    I have read Catholic philosophy and Hindu mysticism, and both are wonderful - first of all, much Hindu and Buddhist mysticism was oral and not literary. A fascinating article on this is Coomaraswamy "the bugbear of literacy".

    A highly literary and sophisticated civilization is hardly necessary for a high level of spirituality to flourish and in fact spirituality is opposed to complex, artificial civilizations and uphold a primitive ideal very similar to hunter gatherer conditions.

    As for modern medicine, it has its uses no doubt - but on balance, it isn't enough to justify modernity.

    And no, I wasn't making stuff up.

    If modern people are the only ones we can observe, that still isn’t a reason to use them as a basis for making claims about humanity at large.

    That’s just unscientific.

    Ah. Good point. Science is about making things up about things we can’t observe, to fit with our cornball agenda.

    Now, we have lots of literary and anthropological evidence that other cultures were very different than us, even our own very recent ancestors.

    Nobody denies this. However, it is quite a leap from that, to your stupid notion that all the science we do is to heal the psychic wounds we incurred when first we decided to descend from the trees.

    But it’s a comforting assumption that flies in the face of what we know.

    Pretending that human beings would be happy and transcendent all the time, if only they forgot how to farm or read is an even more comforting asumption to some, and also flies in the face of everything we know.

    But actually, we know a bit about hunter gatherers, and the picture is far closer to my image than yours. You should read up on the issue – it might challenge some of your cherished assumptions.

    I have, and you’re simply wrong. You are reading Rousseauian BS.

    The default state of mankind is to have a sense of the transcendent.

    And I assume you have evidence for this?

    So it doesn’t make sense to suggest that primitive man was preoccupied with trivial biological realities to the extent we are, since we reached this state as the result of a long and artificial process.

    Actually, it makes total sense, when you look at chimpanzees, who spend their time obsessed with trivialities, when they’re not raping each other or tyrying to kill members of enemy groups.

    As for modern medicine, it has its uses no doubt – but on balance, it isn’t enough to justify modernity.

    So why aren’t you off living in the jungle, then? Who’s stopping you? Why do you choose to live in one of the most modern cities in one of the most modern societies in the world? You could even just build a shack out in the country, but you don’t.

    And no, I wasn’t making stuff up.

    Technically, I suppose that’s true. You were reading a bunch of crap by nineteenth-centurty authors who were making stuff up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Anonymous

    I’m trying to think of anything else post (say) 1950/60 that was a big deal ... How about the working of the immune system? Was that solved before 1950? Anything profound in molecular biology and genetics?

     

    Figuring out (well, mostly) the immune system is obviously a huge deal and was the result of long line of incremental advances during, roughly, 1975-2005. It is now starting to pay off: monoclonal antibodies as drugs, CAR-T therapy for cancer.

    Other pretty profound things that we now mostly understand:
    - Molecular mechanisms of cell division/cell cycle
    - Molecular mechanisms underlying all kinds of sensation
    - Molecular mechanisms of motility
    - Molecular mechanisms of information flow in the entire chain of DNA-to-DNA-to-RNA-to-protein
    - Cell senescence
    - Molecular mechanisms of cell to cell communication

    These are all things that define how living things live. Obviously the structure of DNA was important but thinking that nothing of similar importance happened after that seems pretty ignorant. E.g., it took a whole decade after the 1953 to figure out the genetic code.

    Then there are enabler things that are/will be as important as transistors turned out to be: PCR, nucleic acid sequencing, recombinant nucleic acids technologies.

    Consciousness and are big deals that have yet to be cracked.

    … Consciousness and protein folding are …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @Dr. X

    Actually, Saini points out, anthropological research has revealed that hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian. Hence modern gender differences are more likely to stem from discrimination and other cultural factors than from females’ alleged biological inferiority.
     
    Horsecrap. This kind of thing could only be written by a pansified academic who never killed so much as a frog.

    I hunted, killed, an butchered three deer last month. By myself. And let me tell you, it is a hell of a lot of work. (And that's nothing compared to the Plains Indians spearing bison to death, and probably getting trampled half the time).

    I'm hardly Daniel Boone, but I don't know a single woman who has ever done that, just as I have never seen a single woman do a tear-off roof job or pull a transmission out of a pickup truck or pour a concrete foundation.

    Saini and take his "anthropological research" and shove it.

    “I hunted, killed, an butchered three deer last month. By myself. And let me tell you, it is a hell of a lot of work. (And that’s nothing compared to the Plains Indians spearing bison to death, and probably getting trampled half the time).
    I’m hardly Daniel Boone, but I don’t know a single woman who has ever done that”

    According to two surveys women made up 11% of hunters in the US in 2011 and 19% just two years later in 2013. While the surveys are from different sources (the US Fish & Wildlife Service in 2011, a trade group in 2013), and therefore the exact percentages may not be directly comparable, it’s certain that the percentage is on the rise and is well past trivial levels.

    http://www.petersenshunting.com/hunting-culture/women-hunters-just-call-them-hunters/

    Women hunters are enough of a thing nowadays that gun makers are coming out with rifles and shotguns in women’s models. These seem designed for smaller women, as most others can manage ordinary models.

    http://sportsafield.com/savage-lady-hunter/

    Read More
    • Replies: @sabril
    I wonder if those statistics are like the surveys which show that women are a big percentage of gamers if farmville and candy crush are included as games.
    , @Dr. X
    The number of female hunters is indeed rising, BUT there are numerous caveats: 1) in literally all cases I've ever seen they're accompanied by a husband, boyfriend or father who scouts the deer, builds the deer blind, and does all the "legwork" 2) they shoot the animal, but then it's up to the men to field dress it and drag it out, often with an ATV, and 3) either the men butcher it or they pay a deer processor to butcher it.

    So it's more accurate to say that females "shoot" deer more than "hunt" them. Females are often very good at marksmanship, including in competition, but nearly always have men showing them how it's done -- kinda like the fact that for all the attention Danica Patrick gets, I doubt very much she's capable of swapping engine builds on her race car. Men do that.

    Nonetheless, we're straying from the main point here: in hunter gatherer societies animals were not hunted with rifles that women could shoot, but physically killed by strong men who then butchered the animal through harsh physical labor. These were tasks of great endurance, not "egalitarian" in any way.
    , @stillCARealist
    My sister-in-law is a hunter, and quite a good shot. She's also worked at filleting and skinning for profit. She would be the first to tell you that men are the ones in charge during hunts. Indeed, she would do none of this were it not for her husband.

    Take it from a tough chick, who's from a family of tough chicks: hunting is men's work and glory.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Anonymous

    But I fear that biological theorizing about these tendencies, in our still-sexist world, does more harm than good. It empowers the social injustice warriors, and that is the last thing our world needs.
     
    How does one even write such stuff? Is he trying to sabotage his own side?

    How does one even write such stuff? Is he trying to sabotage his own side?

    This is one of those things i just don’t get.

    There’s several “facts” he cites that are not just wrong, but clearly (and well-established as) wrong–levels of violence in hunter-gatherer socities (i.e. they are high) and women in more egalitarian nations performing equally in math (there is no where this is true; actually the only places women outperform guys are some Arab nations where the guys just suck and the girls win with their sit still and comply skill set). In fact, some Norwegian guy did a mildly humorous video on the male/female occupational divide in Norway. Sexual equality blah, blah, blah and women still don’t want to be engineers and work on things … they want jobs where they sit around talking to each other. And, of course, obvious physical sexual-dimorphism is staring him in the face. Women aren’t miraculously the size of men in hunter-gatherer societies. We know this.

    I would be embarrassed to yammer on spouting obviously false and stupid “facts”. Yet, lying obviouly and stupidly just doesn’t seem to bother Horgan and lots of like minded lefties.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jim jones
    Maybe this one:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @S. Anonyia
    The emo guy would do better among pretty women over the age of 20 in most of the U. S. Upper class women, who make up the majority of attractive women due to the obesity epidemic ruining the lower classes, would definitely pick the sensitive emo guy over the roidhead.

    Upper class women, who make up the majority of attractive women due to the obesity epidemic ruining the lower classes, would definitely pick the sensitive emo guy over the roidhead.

    It’s also probably worth asking who tends to have more kids? Upper-class women or lower-class ones? Who is more likely to end up passing on her genes?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Horgan has said, on more than one occasion, that the whole field of inquiry of race/IQ (or whatever other traits) should be taboo in science. Not because it is invalid, but because “nothing good can come of it” or something to that effect. So, yeah, he is practically conceding the point, but still saying it should be forbidden to talk about. He has clearly expanded his taboo list to include sex differences, too.

    This is racism against Whites (or criminal neglect) talking. The good that can come of it is justice: Whites are cleared of the bogus (on several levels) charges of collective guilt for “Black failure” (to live up to the brain-dead assumption that Blacks must have equal outcomes to Whites or muh White Supremacist Society), and as-yet-unborn White children won’t be raised in a society where they are blamed for same. That is a gigantic, colossal good.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  178. I realize that women have this image of themselves that says they’re attracted to sensitive creeps, but that’s a little like me pretending to like classical music. It’s just sort of a pretense to make myself seem classier. Deep down, I know I’m not fooling anyone.

    How can you not like classical music? I can understand preferring other kinds of music, but not liking it just doesn’t compute, this side of a darkie.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    How can you not like classical music?

    Well, OK. I guess it's more like not really knowing much about it, or being able to tell the really good stuff from the just average stuff. That kind of thing.

    It wasn't the best analogy ever.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @The Alarmist
    How does one get 'biological inferiority' out of gender-specific specialisation?

    The more interesting study of last year's female marchers is not whether they wanted to be dominated by males, rather did the image of these women running around in their clever hats provoke any desire in males to dominate them in physical ways.

    Feminists are more interested in dominating other women. Feminism is a fight for supremacy among females.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Why? Are you afraid she’s going to beat you up?

    For the reciprocal of the reason that women seem to have a similar rule.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  181. But the implication that Darwinism actually establishes race realism is entirely backwards. If evolutionary theory were actually true, then there would be no “race” whatsoever to speak of, and consequently “race realism” would be an oxymoron and the very groundless conceit of bigots that the Left accuses it of being

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

    Refresh my memory; what is the word for a population in the process of speciation?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  182. @Steve Sailer
    Sierra Nevada Indians ate a lot of acorns, but they had to put them through a complicated process to make them edible. I wonder if hunter-gatherers hunted gathering species like squirrels that competed with them for nuts and the like?

    The Indians apparently used fire a lot to alter the environment. Perhaps some of their setting brushfires was to attack competitor species?

    Using fire on the squirrels, I will have to try that one next year and get back to you.

    I know the Great Lakes indians got several sources of food from cattails which grow in thick stands everywhere alongside ponds and ditches, including making a bread from the starch in the roots. So I suppose significant gathering happened. I would still expect way higher than modern levels of meat though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Presumably the most abundant food to gather would be stuff that required cooking or some other processing to be edible so that other animals wouldn't eat it all first. The human digestive system isn't as rugged as that of, say, a goat, so it must have been a problem to outcompete other animals for gathering. Presumably, getting dogs and cats helped make gathering more effective by hunting down small gatherers like rodents.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Lars Porsena
    Using fire on the squirrels, I will have to try that one next year and get back to you.

    I know the Great Lakes indians got several sources of food from cattails which grow in thick stands everywhere alongside ponds and ditches, including making a bread from the starch in the roots. So I suppose significant gathering happened. I would still expect way higher than modern levels of meat though.

    Presumably the most abundant food to gather would be stuff that required cooking or some other processing to be edible so that other animals wouldn’t eat it all first. The human digestive system isn’t as rugged as that of, say, a goat, so it must have been a problem to outcompete other animals for gathering. Presumably, getting dogs and cats helped make gathering more effective by hunting down small gatherers like rodents.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Melendwyr
    We can't digest cellulose, so the fibrous parts of grasses are out, but humans are capable of eating many plant parts that other animals can't handle. We think of rats as being rapacious omnivores, but humans can eat and detoxify many substances which kill rats dead. One of the many reasons not to feed pets 'human' food is that many of them are poisonous to 'em. Ever see a list of which foods aren't safe to give dogs and cats?

    Between our innate ability to process toxins, the effects of cooking, and processing made possible by our advanced tool usage, humans can manage to eke out a living in almost any environment. Most other animals are relative specialists - eating a limited type of food, eating from limited environments, or both.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @vinteuil
    Thanks for this. Should've known that I couldn't trust an "anthropologist" to get the basic facts right.

    "Across these societies, the average age at marriage for females is only 13.8..."

    Wow - that's the average?

    Thanks for this. Should’ve known that I couldn’t trust an “anthropologist” to get the basic facts right.

    “Across these societies, the average age at marriage for females is only 13.8…”

    Wow – that’s the average?

    Why would it be higher?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @AaronB
    Well, a lot of evolutionary psychology is just reinforcing biases in modernized WEIRD countries.

    Most Americans don't realize how true this is because they don't travel, and don't read historical fiction.

    The American macho-man ideal is actually despised in many other countries, and other historical eras.

    In a larger sense, though, the situation is rather twisted - WEIRD countries encourage both men and women to to define themselves as entirely biological creatures, and then surveys that show them actually doing so are reported as surprising confirmation of timeless human truths.

    And so our strange solipsism continues to twist our perception of reality without us being aware of it.

    It's not so much that evolutionary psychology is wrong, although much of it is bad theory and factual error even on its own terms, as I used to love to point out, seldom to any effect- it is more that it confines itself to the biological level when humans have more complex psychologises.

    It may well have captured some level of biological truth but it's just silly to pretend that it has provided a comprehensive explanation.

    For instance, I've never been attracted to blonde bimbos despite the insistence of evo-psyche that I should be and have always liked hipster, artistic, or intellectual girls, and plenty of very pretty girls like soft, effeminate emo type men.

    In general though, these counter-facts are just swept under the rug because they complicate an otherwise simple narrative and provide disturbing evidence that human psychology is not just a biological machine geared to maximize survival.

    For instance, I’ve never been attracted to blonde bimbos despite the insistence of evo-psyche that I should be and have always liked hipster, artistic, or intellectual girls, and plenty of very pretty girls like soft, effeminate emo type men.

    I don’t think you’ve ever read any evo-pysch. Good luck finding anyone who expects men to be especially attracted to blonde bimbos. Abd that “merican macho-man ideal” — I’ve never heard of it in evo-psych or elsewhere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @Luke Lea
    Horgan's comeback: Ethnographic reports that the men were hunters and the women gatherers were all written by men.

    As Whiskey or whoever it was put it….”women, they just want to be dominated….”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @Steve Sailer
    Sierra Nevada Indians ate a lot of acorns, but they had to put them through a complicated process to make them edible. I wonder if hunter-gatherers hunted gathering species like squirrels that competed with them for nuts and the like?

    The Indians apparently used fire a lot to alter the environment. Perhaps some of their setting brushfires was to attack competitor species?

    Better to let the squirrels do the gathering and raid their nut caches for easy gotten booty. ASFAIK the natives used fire to thin out the overstory and encourage new growth for their favored prey specie. This trick is ancient and used by hunters, herders, and farmers the world over. Also helps to rid the ground of pests, especially in the case of farmed plots that are used for the same crops year after year.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon

    for their favored prey specie.
     
    Please, the word is species. The word "specie" refers to money, specifically coins.

    From what I've read about the so-called Illini, they hunted every creature in the forest -- including what they called "the long tails", or cougar! -- but didn't care much for fish. They called themselves Inoca, and were masters of lands centered on modern-day Illinois, but extending also into Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa, Arkansas, and Missouri at the time of the arrival of the Europeans. As with many of the native tribes, both Inoca and Iroquois practiced agriculture based on the so-called "Three Sisters" of corn, beans, and squash.

    The men did the hunting and fighting while the women did most of the remaining chores.

    The Iroquois played a significant role in the the demise of the Inoca, who had allied themselves with the French, with fatal repercussions, and in the end, the Inoca had too many enemies pushing in from all sides to take their choice lands. By the time Illinois became a state in 1818, the Inoca had been reduced to a few survivors shunted off first to Kansas, and then to Oklahoma, where they got 40 acres, and remain to this day.

    From the De Gannes memoir:

    We went into camp two leagues away. As I saw only old men, women, and girls, and five or six young men, I asked them, partly with the few words that I knew and partly by signs, how it happened that there were so few young men. They gave me to understand that they were out on a hunting expedition. The women had thrown down their packs and had run, each with an axe, into the woods to cut poles and to peel bark for their summer hunting cabin. As for the kind they use during their winter sojourn, they always carry these along; they are similar to those which they have in summer, as I shall tell in the proper place. They set them up on the edge of a prairie so as to be in a cool place, for in the month of June and in order to be in the open, it is to be remarked that all the southern nations establish themselves in the most open spots so as to see what is going on, and so as not to be taken by surprise, and in case an attack is made upon them, so as to be able to pursue.

    The few young men who were with us while the women and girls were making the cabins went an arpent into the woods to cut three poles of which they made a large tripod from which they hung a big kettle, which they filled with water and then seated themselves around the fire which they had made underneath. My man and I settled down near them. A short time after, two men arrived each with a buck on his back. Two of our cooks went to meet them. The hunters, on seeing them approach, threw down their load and advanced proudly toward them, highly elated at being the first to bring meat to the camp. Our servitors soon had the bucks cut up and put into the kettle. When they were cooked the old men were called and came to eat. We were the first served and got the best there was. I noticed that this happened every day, and that some young men always came by turns with the old men. They are called guards, and prevent anyone from separating from the band and going off alone, because this frightens away the game. A man and woman once tried to escape from the band while the guards were busy gathering strawberries; one of the guards saw them and ran after them, took away the man's load, cut the collar and the bear skins which they used as a mattress, smashed the kettles which the woman was carrying, and came near killing a child, which she had upon her load, by pulling it from her head; and all this happened without the man or woman saying a single word.

    The next day we saw in a prairie a great herd of buffalos. A halt was called and two old men harangued the young men for half an hour, urging them to show their skill in shooting down all the buffalos that we saw, and to manage so as to make all those that they could not kill move toward us. After removing us to the nearest spot, they started out in two bands, running always at a trot. When they were about a quarter of a league from the animals, they all ran at full speed, and when within gunshot they fired several volleys and shot off an extraordinary number of arrows. A great number of buffalos remained on the ground, and they pursued the rest in such manner that they were driven toward us. Our old men butchered these...
     
    http://virtual.parkland.edu/lstelle1/len/center_for_social_research/inoca_ethnohistory_project/DEGANNES.HTM
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. There is a fundamental inconsistency in Horgan’s arguments. He acts as if he does not believe his own claims.

    1. He claims that we should not study biological differences because “no good will come of it.” Society will be made worse off if people think that there are biological differences.

    2. He claims that all the evidence points to a lack of biological differences.

    If he believes claim #2 then he should enthusiastically support more open scientific study of biological differences based on claim #1, to show definitively that the differences are null. Making claim #2 while also making claim #1 is hypocritical and inconsistent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    He acts as if he does not believe his own claims.
     
    Of course he doesn't. He doesn't even believe in belief.

    It's really remarkable how often this collection of Charlie Browns keeps expecting good faith from Lucys like Horgan. It's not coming. Better to devise effective means to make him pay the price for his open treachery.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @reiner Tor
    Modern hunter-gatherer societies which were studied by anthropologists, the most successful hunters are usually forced to share their booty with other members of the group in a kind of de facto progressive taxation, so the differences were probably even smaller than the differences in individual abilities, effort levels, etc.

    Have you read Christopher Boehm’s Hierarchy in the Forest? D.S. Wilson is also worth reading.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @dearieme
    "Watson and Crick got the Nobel Prize for discovering DNA": not exactly. They deduced its structure, which immediately implied its working principle. Knowledge of its existence was old hat.

    I'm trying to think of anything else post (say) 1950/60 that was a big deal. Integrated circuits? Plate Tectonics as an explanation for how Continental Drift happens was an advance, though you might say it was a minor one since everybody with anything between the ears had already accepted that Continental Drift happened. Perhaps a bit harsh.

    How about the working of the immune system? Was that solved before 1950? Anything profound in molecular biology and genetics? I know of a chap who gave up Theoretical Chemistry in the 6os because "it has all been done". Come to think of it, there has been a dramatic advance in the understanding of the life of trees in woodland. Bolt-from-the-blue advance, but in a deeply unfashionable field of course; it has none of the glitz that theoretical physicists used to claim for themselves. I suppose the antics of "environmentalists" have given serious ecological science a bad name. Similarly the no-account field of archaeology has been hugely advanced by the combination of pollen studies, carbon dating, dendrochronology, plus other dating methods. Has the advance finished though?

    David Sloan Wilson solved moral philosophy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Insightful points. Darwinism as in macroevolution is a cul de sac. Many smart people a prisoner in that mental straightjacket. In fact it is mostly smart people but lazy to go all the way and face the ultimate nothingness of neo-darwinism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  192. @AnotherDad

    How does one even write such stuff? Is he trying to sabotage his own side?
     
    This is one of those things i just don't get.

    There's several "facts" he cites that are not just wrong, but clearly (and well-established as) wrong--levels of violence in hunter-gatherer socities (i.e. they are high) and women in more egalitarian nations performing equally in math (there is no where this is true; actually the only places women outperform guys are some Arab nations where the guys just suck and the girls win with their sit still and comply skill set). In fact, some Norwegian guy did a mildly humorous video on the male/female occupational divide in Norway. Sexual equality blah, blah, blah and women still don't want to be engineers and work on things ... they want jobs where they sit around talking to each other. And, of course, obvious physical sexual-dimorphism is staring him in the face. Women aren't miraculously the size of men in hunter-gatherer societies. We know this.

    I would be embarrassed to yammer on spouting obviously false and stupid "facts". Yet, lying obviouly and stupidly just doesn't seem to bother Horgan and lots of like minded lefties.

    Maybe this one:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. My comment above was for Intelligent Dasein.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  194. @Intelligent Dasein
    It is deeply indicative of the benighted nature of this whole discussion that Horgan is able to simply toss out statements like "in light of the fact that we are the products of natural selection," and this premise is accepted without further ado by friend and foe alike as the self-evident (and, since it is never even examined, entirely superfluous) antecedent material by which the debate is framed. Until this ridiculous situation is amended, there will never be any traction gained by anyone arguing for any sort of "realism" in those studies concerned with the nature of man.

    For evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, and all such cognate derivative disciplines are, like all things Darwinian, completely incapable of furnishing any proof as to the truth or falsity of statements concerning human nature, one way or the other. "Proof" for the Darwinian consists in so arranging a pictorial presentation of a selection of quite varied and discrepant facts so as to conform to his mechanical-causal scheme for explaining all aspects of living reality. Darwinism is therefore a method and not a result. The Darwinist reads his theory into nature, not out of it. Anything whatsoever can be "Darwinized,"meaning that it can be explained as the outcome of a selection process perfectly in accordance with the scheme; and the truth of this explanation is thereafter accepted due solely to the unquestioned faith placed in the method, without regard to the qualitative nature of the assertion or the particular facts presented. Therefore any debate about human nature which accepts Darwinism as a premise is incapable of resolution and descends ultimately into the mere clash of opinions and preferences, in which one's involved personal inclinations play the dominant role.

    Confusingly, the "race realists" of today are content to be but one more insignificant voice in this meaningless debate, when the logical implications of their own position, as well as their only hopes of political success, necessitate them rising out of it. In truth, anyone calling himself a race realist ought to be the very last person touting the merits of Darwinism, but this has been completely misunderstood due to the appalling lack of intellectual rigor that prevails among them. Moreover, one gets the impression that the Darwinism of the race realists is clung to with such tenacity simply because they believe it to justify their realist beliefs, that Darwinism in itself is neither understood nor appreciated in its depths, and that there would be little reason for mentioning it at all were it not for the imprimatur it seemed to confer upon their political leanings.

    But the implication that Darwinism actually establishes race realism is entirely backwards. If evolutionary theory were actually true, then there would be no "race" whatsoever to speak of, and consequently "race realism" would be an oxymoron and the very groundless conceit of bigots that the Left accuses it of being. On the Darwinian reading there are nothing but transitional forms, a swarming mass of incoherent and undifferentiated life; no race, no definition, no species. The unquestioned sexual compatibility among the various human races renders the whole idea absurd even on an evolutionary model; and the oft-cited analogy between human races and differing breeds of dog, horse, or other domesticated animals would tend to support the notion that acculturation and training were more important in human development than mere differences in ancestry as such. Indeed, the fact that HBDers must ultimately rest their case on the vanishingly small dissimilarities in the statistical distribution of DNA sequences among races is an embarrassment and a confession of the weakness of their entire position.

    Among human beings, race is primarily an affiliation of the affections and the understanding and not of the body. The "real" differences between the races, therefore, must be looked for in the will rather than the biology of the individual. The will, being an aspect of the soul (i.e. the substantial form) is the prime phenomenon, the essence of the man. Far from being the ephemeral will-o-the-wisp, the coincidental conglomeration of social patterns and "memes" that modern psychology holds it to be, it is precisely here that all real and essential human differences reside. Where this not the case, none of the other differences would even register as anything more than incidental, and having white or black skin would be of no more importance than having blond or brown hair. But foreignness, i.e. the felt incompatibility between two natures, is a decisive and inwardly felt experience in every life. The racelessness favored by the cosmopolitans has nothing to do with a blending of skin tones, but is rather the championing of the undifferentiated and completely pliable will of a rootless urban humanity, for which the possibility of consensus exists only for practical questions of the grossest kind, and which is ironically the mirror image of the very Darwinism embraced by the race realists.

    If you consider yourself a realist and also a Darwinist, then you are ignorant. That is not to say that you are not intelligent; you may be very bright, well read, have a high IQ, and all that. But you have clearly not worked through the cultural, biological, physical, and metaphysical implications of your beliefs with any sort of consistency. Only the real essentialism of Aristotle, deepened by 2,000 years of Western Christianity, can provide the basis for articulating real racial differences that do not result in absurdities. If we do not begin with a genuine understanding of reality, there is no hope.

    and the oft-cited analogy between human races and differing breeds of dog, horse, or other domesticated animals would tend to support the notion that acculturation and training were more important in human development than mere differences in ancestry as such.

    You think you can acculturate and train a dumb Afghan Hound to do the job of an intelligent Border Collie? You think that Bloodhounds tracking ability is just a matter of acculturation and training, and breeding ancestry is insignificant?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    I wonder how far a well-trained team of pugs would get in the Iditarod. :)
    , @Intelligent Dasein
    Now you and Jenner Ickham Errican are just being plain stupid, but that is pretty much the normal speed for people holding the beliefs you do. The fact that you would even ask this question proves that you are either extremely uncharitable when it comes to understanding other people's arguments or you are an incurable case of Dunning-Kruger idiocy, and probably both. There really isn't any point in answering you, since you are nothing but a pig-headed fool who wishes only to make snide remarks not to understand, but for the benefit of others reading this thread I will address your impertinent questions (and then invite you to go get your shine box).

    Bloodhounds and Border Collies did not breed themselves, did they? They were created over a relatively short period of time by a deliberate and very unnatural selection program that involved forced pairings, the heartless culling of most of the offspring, and yes, a rigorous training program that was necessary both for the development and the proof of the traits being bred for. This is so obviously true in the case of the Border Collie that one wonders how even you could have missed it, but no matter. The point is that Darwinism had nothing to do with it.

    The entire existence of the well-bred dog is "culture." The culture of the man who hunts or ranches, in a specific clime and in a specific manner; who breeds, trains, and selects his animals, bringing out their native attributes for his own benefit, never for theirs. The mere existence of a breeding program necessitates the question of who is breeding whom, and to what end. If you could imagine these circumstances from the dog's point of view, you would find yourself living under a whole socialist regime of the strictest tyranny, where your every natural inclination was ruthlessly channeled towards one exogenous and incomprehensible end, upon penalty of death for failure. The well-bred dog lives everyday in Kafka's Trial, although thankfully he isn't rational so he doesn't realize it.

    That ought to give you some clue about the true, inner nature of captive breeding. The Bloodhound, the dairy cow, the laying hen, which of these animals have been "improved" (in the Darwinian sense) by the changes we've brought about in them? Are they "the fittest" now? Do they survive better in the wild? Do they reproduce more, outside of the breeding program itself? No, of course not. They exist now only to serve their human overlords with their very lives. They have been twisted, squeezed, mutilated into these shapes by means as un-native to life as the coppicing of a willow; and the fact that they were able to endure under such conditions, that they allowed these attributes to be educed out of them by the most relentless and unnatural pressure, is a stunning testament to the plasticity of life within the form. For captive breeding, far from establishing the truth of Darwinism, is yet again another proof of its opposite. Monumental phenotypic change can be wrung from the flesh in a short time, a matter of a few generations, without corresponding genotypic change, without speciation, and without benefiting the organism whatsoever.

    This extreme range of accidental change is required by the necessity for life to preserve itself under all adversity, i.e. to avoid substantial change, which means destruction. Thus, plasticity within the form is neither evolutionary nor progressive, but essentially conservative. It conserves the basic tendencies and direction of the organism (which it is not in anyone's power to alter) at the expense of its accidental attributes, lest it perish altogether. Since, then, substantial change cannot be affected by even the most sustained, focused, and unnatural selective pressures, it would appear that evolution by natural selection does not occur.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @MEH 0910

    and the oft-cited analogy between human races and differing breeds of dog, horse, or other domesticated animals would tend to support the notion that acculturation and training were more important in human development than mere differences in ancestry as such.
     
    You think you can acculturate and train a dumb Afghan Hound to do the job of an intelligent Border Collie? You think that Bloodhounds tracking ability is just a matter of acculturation and training, and breeding ancestry is insignificant?

    I wonder how far a well-trained team of pugs would get in the Iditarod. :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @Anonymous

    She lived with the Bushmen of the Kalahari
     
    How many Bushmen did she live with at any one time? Was there a nightly rota?

    Many of the famous women "anthropologists" of the 20th century seem to have found their savage subjects quite penetrating.

    One or two male ones did too – like Colin Turnbull, a product of Westminster and Oxford, a homosexual who hated the culture and people he was born into, and “… who was motivated by a deep-seated wish to find goodness, beauty, and power in the oppressed or ridiculed* and, by making those qualities known, reveal the evils of western civilization“.

    http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/g/grinker-africa.html

    * he wasn’t above a bit of oppression and ridicule himself, for which see his feelings about the Ik of Uganda. In Bernd Heine’s words “At a meeting I had with the elders… I was asked if it was not possible to take legal action against Turnbull. Should he ever dare to come back to Ik country they would force him to “eat his own faeces”.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @Coburn
    Good point about the Mongols. The Khans amassed extraordinary wealth.

    But, I disagree with your notion of an underclass mongols in poverty. The Mongols took slaves. The slaves became the mongol underclass.

    I understand slavery is also a feature of many hunter-gatherer societies. Notice that the SJWs elide over that in their celebration of hunter-gather.

    “I understand slavery is also a feature of many hunter-gatherer societies.”

    Really? Any links? I’ve always thought it was a feature of farming societies, not hunter-gatherers.

    When hunters go to war, don’t they kill the men and take the women – after all, what would you do with a captured male – give him a weapon and have him behind you while hunting?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Rich hunter-gatherers (like California coastal Indians) had slaves. It doesn’t exist among very poor hunter-gatherers (i.e. all of the still existing ones), but then again, it doesn’t exist among very poor subsistence farmers either.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @Thea
    I wonder if Mr. Horgan understands that articles such as this do not inspire sexual desire in females?

    Does he not notice women lift their shirts for rockers but never the likes of him?

    I am pretty confident that in his subculture, he does fine. Probably he is invited to present at conferences where he is introduced as a regular columnist for SciAm. In other words, he has a good deal of social status within his field. I can just about assure you that attractive young women regularly approach him looking for “advice.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @prosa123
    "I hunted, killed, an butchered three deer last month. By myself. And let me tell you, it is a hell of a lot of work. (And that’s nothing compared to the Plains Indians spearing bison to death, and probably getting trampled half the time).
    I’m hardly Daniel Boone, but I don’t know a single woman who has ever done that"


    According to two surveys women made up 11% of hunters in the US in 2011 and 19% just two years later in 2013. While the surveys are from different sources (the US Fish & Wildlife Service in 2011, a trade group in 2013), and therefore the exact percentages may not be directly comparable, it's certain that the percentage is on the rise and is well past trivial levels.
    http://www.petersenshunting.com/hunting-culture/women-hunters-just-call-them-hunters/

    Women hunters are enough of a thing nowadays that gun makers are coming out with rifles and shotguns in women's models. These seem designed for smaller women, as most others can manage ordinary models.
    http://sportsafield.com/savage-lady-hunter/

    I wonder if those statistics are like the surveys which show that women are a big percentage of gamers if farmville and candy crush are included as games.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Right, only a pretty feminine man can belive that a women can and do these things that they havent tried themselves. Pulling a cold hide off of a whitails hocks is extremly hard and requires a lot of strength and labour. But you would never know that if you havnt tried it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    It is my understanding that in the Plains Buffalo Culture Tribes (e.g. Blackfeet, Crow, Cheyenne, Lakota), the women did pretty much all of the dressing and skinning labor. The job of the men was to get the bison dead on the ground. I think it likely that a sixteen year old Cheyenne girl from that time, using a stone knife, could skin a whitetail or buffalo on par with any modern road warrior equipped with the finest gear available.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @YetAnotherAnon
    "I understand slavery is also a feature of many hunter-gatherer societies."

    Really? Any links? I've always thought it was a feature of farming societies, not hunter-gatherers.

    When hunters go to war, don't they kill the men and take the women - after all, what would you do with a captured male - give him a weapon and have him behind you while hunting?

    Rich hunter-gatherers (like California coastal Indians) had slaves. It doesn’t exist among very poor hunter-gatherers (i.e. all of the still existing ones), but then again, it doesn’t exist among very poor subsistence farmers either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    But what did they do with the male slaves? The women slaves, yes, they could gather, dress skins, sew footwear or whatever, but what did the male slaves do?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @Jim skeptic
    Right, only a pretty feminine man can belive that a women can and do these things that they havent tried themselves. Pulling a cold hide off of a whitails hocks is extremly hard and requires a lot of strength and labour. But you would never know that if you havnt tried it.

    It is my understanding that in the Plains Buffalo Culture Tribes (e.g. Blackfeet, Crow, Cheyenne, Lakota), the women did pretty much all of the dressing and skinning labor. The job of the men was to get the bison dead on the ground. I think it likely that a sixteen year old Cheyenne girl from that time, using a stone knife, could skin a whitetail or buffalo on par with any modern road warrior equipped with the finest gear available.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. @reiner Tor
    Rich hunter-gatherers (like California coastal Indians) had slaves. It doesn’t exist among very poor hunter-gatherers (i.e. all of the still existing ones), but then again, it doesn’t exist among very poor subsistence farmers either.

    But what did they do with the male slaves? The women slaves, yes, they could gather, dress skins, sew footwear or whatever, but what did the male slaves do?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. @Anon
    I'd say white women have been picking men who are competent, not so much dominant. There are too many beta males alive for the latter to be true. If every woman wanted an alpha, there would be nothing but white alpha males around after a few thousand years of breeding. The environment whites evolved in, Northern Europe at the end of an ice age and with winters that need to be planned ahead for, was a much harder place to survive in without ingenuity and problem-solving ability, so competence was the supreme priority. In comparison, it was easy to find food year-round in Africa.

    Well, as I understand it, the rule of an alpha in nature is often just a few years, whereafter he is deposed by his trusted lieutenants (if a chimp) or by the arrival of one or more youthful competitors (if a lion) and killed, maimed and/or run off. Numerous former betas will have their shot at the harem over time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. @anon

    Did women who marched on Washington on January 21, 2017, actually have an innate desire to be dominated by men?
     
    I get that this is just a disingenuous, sort of smartass comment, but I would note that not one of those women seemed to mind when they were being dominated by a smooth-talking black guy a few years ago. They seemed pretty excited about it, in fact.

    Perhaps the marchers wished the President to notice that they too had pussies which had not, so far, been grabbed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @anon
    Depends on where you go. If most of the bars in Williamsburg Brooklyn, where I live, the effeminate emo type would have a better chance.

    Bars in Williamsburg are, from an evolutionary standpoiny, a very novel environment. Self-selecting, too.

    Other places I’ve been to where the soft type would would do better are Sweden, Denmark, Spain, and parts of Asia.


    Yeah? Is that why the women there give it up for semi-litrate "refugees"?

    Only Americans like douchebags – but that isn’t an reason to project our preferences onto the world, even tho Americans seem to have a really, really hard time understanding that others may be different than them.


    You know, there's quite a large gap between being healthy and physically fit and being a "douchebag", though I find it highly illuminating that you put it that way.

    Your average sensitive emo type is kind of a douchebag too, you know.

    Also, if you read classic literature you will find that in earlier eras Britain also preferred soft effeminate men.


    The upper classes did. But at that time, the only way you got to be soft and effeminate was if you were rich. A good provider, in other words. You may want to read up on some evopsych here.

    The picture is complicated and the biological substrate is just one layer that’s heavily modified by environment.


    Who exactly ever said that it wasn't?

    Just because we chose to settle down in the most primitive biological substrate and pride ourselves on how tough and realistic we are shouldn’t blind us to the reality others have made other choices.

    Strictly speaking, it's NOT another choice. Even your example was being attracted to pretentious girls with annoying glasses. That doesn't even contradict the premises of evolutionary psychology, you know. Now, if you'd said that you were attracted to women with obvious physical illnesses, or women who are clearly post-menopausal, you'd have a point. But you didn't, and even if you did, you're just one guy. Mating is largely a numbers game.

    It's like saying you don't like sweets much, so that proves that people didn't really evolve to desire hugh-calorie foods like sugar. That would be a really stupid thing to say, don't you agree? The only reason you'd ever say it is if you don't really understand the arguments about human evolution.

    Is that making any sense?

    Well, I think if a significantly large minority doesn’t have preferences that can be explained through evopsyche, then that is a serious challenge to the theory.

    Genetic mutations can perhaps account for a some freaks
    but not whole sections of the population.

    Evo psyche distinguishes between good providers and sexy alphas – soft effeminate types featured as sexy male archetypes in the popular imagination of the era. So it wasn’t about bring a good provider.

    If my sexual attraction to women isn’t limited to signs of fertility, but responds to factors that can have no biological significance, then this is a serious challenge to the theory that we are entirely products of our biology, if many men share my strange outlook, which they do.

    We cannot all be genetic freaks – that would be specual pleading to shore up a tottering theory.

    Who says it isn’t complicated? Most people who believe in evopsyche say we are simple products of our biology, and that all our actions can be explained in darwinian terms.

    What I am saying is that while that has some truth, it is a simplistic one dimensional model of the human psyche that conflicts with too many known facts to be taken seriously.

    Real world observations show that human conduct departs dramatically from biological expectations.

    The idea that we are simple fitness maximizing machines is a wish-fulfillment fantasy that appeals to undeveloped modern minds.

    The biological substrate is real, but to choose to see only that is self-inflicted stupidity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Well, I think if a significantly large minority doesn’t have preferences that can be explained through evopsyche, then that is a serious challenge to the theory.

    Your preferences ARE explained through evopsych, Einstein. You're still going after healthy, fertile women, aren't you? Not old ladies or women with wasting diseases? You're not attracted to, say, rocks or plants or other inanimate objects? Your personal preferences within the subset of healthy, fertile women are just that. Your preferences, most likely influenced by your personal experiences with those types of women.

    soft effeminate types featured as sexy male archetypes in the popular imagination of the era.

    Among the very, very few people who were writing novels, they sometimes did, anyway. And most of THOSE people were men. Do you think the fact that a bunch of effeminate, tubercular creeps were writing novels where women found effeminate, tubercular creeps to be highly desirable might mean something OTHER than the fact that women actually did find effeminate, tubercular creeps highly desirable?

    So it wasn’t about bring a good provider.

    Sure it was. I mean, Mr Darcy is probably the primary example of this. "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." Notice how the "good fortune" part is the very first thing they mention about men in the novel? That's like the archetypal example of romance from a feminine perspective.

    When you can find romance novels written about homeless cripples, get back to me.

    If my sexual attraction to women isn’t limited to signs of fertility, but responds to factors that can have no biological significance, then this is a serious challenge to the theory that we are entirely products of our biology, if many men share my strange outlook, which they do.

    No it isn't. The women you're talking about are plenty fertile enough for your purposes. You don't have to be only attracted to the absolute most fertile women in the world. Your idea that there's some sort of binary, where there are some people who get laid all the time, and some people who absolutely never do, under any circumstances, is a strawman.

    We cannot all be genetic freaks – that would be specual pleading to shore up a tottering theory.

    It's "tottering" a lot less than your "savages were noble and happy" theory. Find me a large group of men attracted to withered old ladies, and you'll be onto something.

    Most people who believe in evopsyche say we are simple products of our biology, and that all our actions can be explained in darwinian terms.

    Find me one single person who doesn't say that your own personal experiences shape things. Go ahead. Just one.

    What I am saying is that while that has some truth, it is a simplistic one dimensional model of the human psyche that conflicts with too many known facts to be taken seriously.

    You're one to talk about that. You are the guy who claimed that everything modern people do is to heal their wounds from not being hunter-gatherers anymore. Can you name me ANYONE who has taken that seriously since the early 20th century?

    Real world observations show that human conduct departs dramatically from biological expectations.

    Does it? Do the majority of people routinely seek out infectious disease?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. @prosa123
    "I hunted, killed, an butchered three deer last month. By myself. And let me tell you, it is a hell of a lot of work. (And that’s nothing compared to the Plains Indians spearing bison to death, and probably getting trampled half the time).
    I’m hardly Daniel Boone, but I don’t know a single woman who has ever done that"


    According to two surveys women made up 11% of hunters in the US in 2011 and 19% just two years later in 2013. While the surveys are from different sources (the US Fish & Wildlife Service in 2011, a trade group in 2013), and therefore the exact percentages may not be directly comparable, it's certain that the percentage is on the rise and is well past trivial levels.
    http://www.petersenshunting.com/hunting-culture/women-hunters-just-call-them-hunters/

    Women hunters are enough of a thing nowadays that gun makers are coming out with rifles and shotguns in women's models. These seem designed for smaller women, as most others can manage ordinary models.
    http://sportsafield.com/savage-lady-hunter/

    The number of female hunters is indeed rising, BUT there are numerous caveats: 1) in literally all cases I’ve ever seen they’re accompanied by a husband, boyfriend or father who scouts the deer, builds the deer blind, and does all the “legwork” 2) they shoot the animal, but then it’s up to the men to field dress it and drag it out, often with an ATV, and 3) either the men butcher it or they pay a deer processor to butcher it.

    So it’s more accurate to say that females “shoot” deer more than “hunt” them. Females are often very good at marksmanship, including in competition, but nearly always have men showing them how it’s done — kinda like the fact that for all the attention Danica Patrick gets, I doubt very much she’s capable of swapping engine builds on her race car. Men do that.

    Nonetheless, we’re straying from the main point here: in hunter gatherer societies animals were not hunted with rifles that women could shoot, but physically killed by strong men who then butchered the animal through harsh physical labor. These were tasks of great endurance, not “egalitarian” in any way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corn
    That’s been my impression of female hunters as well. Hunting has become a sort of bonding activity for some countryfolk couples.

    If Daddy, bf/hubby or the boy she’s trying to impress stops hunting, the majority of these lady hunters never go back to the woods.

    Respect to the ones who do though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB
    Well, I think if a significantly large minority doesn't have preferences that can be explained through evopsyche, then that is a serious challenge to the theory.

    Genetic mutations can perhaps account for a some freaks
    but not whole sections of the population.

    Evo psyche distinguishes between good providers and sexy alphas - soft effeminate types featured as sexy male archetypes in the popular imagination of the era. So it wasn't about bring a good provider.

    If my sexual attraction to women isn't limited to signs of fertility, but responds to factors that can have no biological significance, then this is a serious challenge to the theory that we are entirely products of our biology, if many men share my strange outlook, which they do.

    We cannot all be genetic freaks - that would be specual pleading to shore up a tottering theory.

    Who says it isn't complicated? Most people who believe in evopsyche say we are simple products of our biology, and that all our actions can be explained in darwinian terms.

    What I am saying is that while that has some truth, it is a simplistic one dimensional model of the human psyche that conflicts with too many known facts to be taken seriously.

    Real world observations show that human conduct departs dramatically from biological expectations.

    The idea that we are simple fitness maximizing machines is a wish-fulfillment fantasy that appeals to undeveloped modern minds.

    The biological substrate is real, but to choose to see only that is self-inflicted stupidity.

    Well, I think if a significantly large minority doesn’t have preferences that can be explained through evopsyche, then that is a serious challenge to the theory.

    Your preferences ARE explained through evopsych, Einstein. You’re still going after healthy, fertile women, aren’t you? Not old ladies or women with wasting diseases? You’re not attracted to, say, rocks or plants or other inanimate objects? Your personal preferences within the subset of healthy, fertile women are just that. Your preferences, most likely influenced by your personal experiences with those types of women.

    soft effeminate types featured as sexy male archetypes in the popular imagination of the era.

    Among the very, very few people who were writing novels, they sometimes did, anyway. And most of THOSE people were men. Do you think the fact that a bunch of effeminate, tubercular creeps were writing novels where women found effeminate, tubercular creeps to be highly desirable might mean something OTHER than the fact that women actually did find effeminate, tubercular creeps highly desirable?

    So it wasn’t about bring a good provider.

    Sure it was. I mean, Mr Darcy is probably the primary example of this. “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.” Notice how the “good fortune” part is the very first thing they mention about men in the novel? That’s like the archetypal example of romance from a feminine perspective.

    When you can find romance novels written about homeless cripples, get back to me.

    If my sexual attraction to women isn’t limited to signs of fertility, but responds to factors that can have no biological significance, then this is a serious challenge to the theory that we are entirely products of our biology, if many men share my strange outlook, which they do.

    No it isn’t. The women you’re talking about are plenty fertile enough for your purposes. You don’t have to be only attracted to the absolute most fertile women in the world. Your idea that there’s some sort of binary, where there are some people who get laid all the time, and some people who absolutely never do, under any circumstances, is a strawman.

    We cannot all be genetic freaks – that would be specual pleading to shore up a tottering theory.

    It’s “tottering” a lot less than your “savages were noble and happy” theory. Find me a large group of men attracted to withered old ladies, and you’ll be onto something.

    Most people who believe in evopsyche say we are simple products of our biology, and that all our actions can be explained in darwinian terms.

    Find me one single person who doesn’t say that your own personal experiences shape things. Go ahead. Just one.

    What I am saying is that while that has some truth, it is a simplistic one dimensional model of the human psyche that conflicts with too many known facts to be taken seriously.

    You’re one to talk about that. You are the guy who claimed that everything modern people do is to heal their wounds from not being hunter-gatherers anymore. Can you name me ANYONE who has taken that seriously since the early 20th century?

    Real world observations show that human conduct departs dramatically from biological expectations.

    Does it? Do the majority of people routinely seek out infectious disease?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    my response above was to you but it got lost in the coment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. @Neil Templeton
    Better to let the squirrels do the gathering and raid their nut caches for easy gotten booty. ASFAIK the natives used fire to thin out the overstory and encourage new growth for their favored prey specie. This trick is ancient and used by hunters, herders, and farmers the world over. Also helps to rid the ground of pests, especially in the case of farmed plots that are used for the same crops year after year.

    for their favored prey specie.

    Please, the word is species. The word “specie” refers to money, specifically coins.

    From what I’ve read about the so-called Illini, they hunted every creature in the forest — including what they called “the long tails”, or cougar! — but didn’t care much for fish. They called themselves Inoca, and were masters of lands centered on modern-day Illinois, but extending also into Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa, Arkansas, and Missouri at the time of the arrival of the Europeans. As with many of the native tribes, both Inoca and Iroquois practiced agriculture based on the so-called “Three Sisters” of corn, beans, and squash.

    The men did the hunting and fighting while the women did most of the remaining chores.

    The Iroquois played a significant role in the the demise of the Inoca, who had allied themselves with the French, with fatal repercussions, and in the end, the Inoca had too many enemies pushing in from all sides to take their choice lands. By the time Illinois became a state in 1818, the Inoca had been reduced to a few survivors shunted off first to Kansas, and then to Oklahoma, where they got 40 acres, and remain to this day.

    From the De Gannes memoir:

    We went into camp two leagues away. As I saw only old men, women, and girls, and five or six young men, I asked them, partly with the few words that I knew and partly by signs, how it happened that there were so few young men. They gave me to understand that they were out on a hunting expedition. The women had thrown down their packs and had run, each with an axe, into the woods to cut poles and to peel bark for their summer hunting cabin. As for the kind they use during their winter sojourn, they always carry these along; they are similar to those which they have in summer, as I shall tell in the proper place. They set them up on the edge of a prairie so as to be in a cool place, for in the month of June and in order to be in the open, it is to be remarked that all the southern nations establish themselves in the most open spots so as to see what is going on, and so as not to be taken by surprise, and in case an attack is made upon them, so as to be able to pursue.

    The few young men who were with us while the women and girls were making the cabins went an arpent into the woods to cut three poles of which they made a large tripod from which they hung a big kettle, which they filled with water and then seated themselves around the fire which they had made underneath. My man and I settled down near them. A short time after, two men arrived each with a buck on his back. Two of our cooks went to meet them. The hunters, on seeing them approach, threw down their load and advanced proudly toward them, highly elated at being the first to bring meat to the camp. Our servitors soon had the bucks cut up and put into the kettle. When they were cooked the old men were called and came to eat. We were the first served and got the best there was. I noticed that this happened every day, and that some young men always came by turns with the old men. They are called guards, and prevent anyone from separating from the band and going off alone, because this frightens away the game. A man and woman once tried to escape from the band while the guards were busy gathering strawberries; one of the guards saw them and ran after them, took away the man’s load, cut the collar and the bear skins which they used as a mattress, smashed the kettles which the woman was carrying, and came near killing a child, which she had upon her load, by pulling it from her head; and all this happened without the man or woman saying a single word.

    The next day we saw in a prairie a great herd of buffalos. A halt was called and two old men harangued the young men for half an hour, urging them to show their skill in shooting down all the buffalos that we saw, and to manage so as to make all those that they could not kill move toward us. After removing us to the nearest spot, they started out in two bands, running always at a trot. When they were about a quarter of a league from the animals, they all ran at full speed, and when within gunshot they fired several volleys and shot off an extraordinary number of arrows. A great number of buffalos remained on the ground, and they pursued the rest in such manner that they were driven toward us. Our old men butchered these…

    http://virtual.parkland.edu/lstelle1/len/center_for_social_research/inoca_ethnohistory_project/DEGANNES.HTM

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. I agreed that some portion of my attraction and behavior is based on biological factors – I said the biological substrate is real – I merely said a large portion of my behavior is based on factors that has zero biological significance in a Darwinian sense.

    In other words, humans are both creature and creator, as it used to be expressed.

    But even the most fundamentalist religions never denied that there is a heavy element of “creature” in man, nor would I dream of doing so.

    It is sadly all too undeniable.

    The problem with evo psyche is that it claims we are ALL “creature” – and this is a wish fulfillment fantasy of modern man. Yes, modern man wishes it were true, and builds his fantasy castles on science denial.

    Evo psyche is really an attempt to fashion man into a being preoccupied entirely by his biological substrate under the guise of an objective, neutral study of the facts. This has become increasingly clear to me.

    It is a polemical philosophical movement appealing to modern fantasies utilizing the scientific prestige vocabulary of its day to lend it an air of credibility despite its basis in wish-fulfillment.

    In fact, we as humans can choose to cultivate our biological preoccupations exclusively, as modern culture urges us to, or we can connect to our larger selves.

    If I am most sexually attracted to women who don’t maximize signs of fertility, but who balance fertility with physical qualities that have no biological significance, then I am not a fertility maximizing machine, contrary to the claims of evo psyche.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    I merely said a large portion of my behavior is based on factors that has zero biological significance in a Darwinian sense.

    I don't know who you're arguing with then, because literally nobody ever doubted that.

    The problem with evo psyche is that it claims we are ALL “creature” – and this is a wish fulfillment fantasy of modern man.

    No. It is something for which there is evidence. The idea that we're more than just "creatures" is wish-fulfillment for people who want to think they're something special.

    Evo psyche is really an attempt to fashion man into a being preoccupied entirely by his biological substrate under the guise of an objective, neutral study of the facts.

    You arguing with it is really an attempt to fashion man into something other than just an animal.

    In fact, we as humans can choose to cultivate our biological preoccupations exclusively, as modern culture urges us to, or we can connect to our larger selves.

    You haven't even proven that there IS such a thing as a "larger self". Sounds a lot like wish-fulfillment to me.

    If I am most sexually attracted to women who don’t maximize signs of fertility, but who balance fertility with physical qualities that have no biological significance, then I am not a fertility maximizing machine, contrary to the claims of evo psyche.

    Well, you might very well be. For example, if you're a wimpy little guy living in Williamsburg, perhaps you've just learned that the pretentious women might actually give you a shot, unlike the actually hot women. If you went after the hot ones, you'd be wasting time that you could be spending going after the problem glasses girls.

    And if I had to guess, you've had a lot more actual sexual experience with the pretentious girls than with the hot ones, so you've just learned to associate the glasses with the sex.

    So there are all kinds of explanations for the way people act that don't contradict evopsych theories at all.

    It's kind of like how humans evolved to have fear responses to snakes. Some people have that response more strongly than others. There are people who have gotten over that response completely. Some people have even learned to like snakes and keep them as pets. But that does not, in any way, change the fact that it is a response we've come by due to evolution, and nobody would deny that we have evolved to have that response. For some strange reason, when it comes to personal attraction, people like to pretend that it's different somehow.

    And at no point did it ever occur to you to have sex with a rock or a withered old hag, now did it? You can pretend you're something better than an animal, and I know that's a comforting belief to a lot of people, but it's basically an illusion.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. @anon
    Well, I think if a significantly large minority doesn’t have preferences that can be explained through evopsyche, then that is a serious challenge to the theory.

    Your preferences ARE explained through evopsych, Einstein. You're still going after healthy, fertile women, aren't you? Not old ladies or women with wasting diseases? You're not attracted to, say, rocks or plants or other inanimate objects? Your personal preferences within the subset of healthy, fertile women are just that. Your preferences, most likely influenced by your personal experiences with those types of women.

    soft effeminate types featured as sexy male archetypes in the popular imagination of the era.

    Among the very, very few people who were writing novels, they sometimes did, anyway. And most of THOSE people were men. Do you think the fact that a bunch of effeminate, tubercular creeps were writing novels where women found effeminate, tubercular creeps to be highly desirable might mean something OTHER than the fact that women actually did find effeminate, tubercular creeps highly desirable?

    So it wasn’t about bring a good provider.

    Sure it was. I mean, Mr Darcy is probably the primary example of this. "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." Notice how the "good fortune" part is the very first thing they mention about men in the novel? That's like the archetypal example of romance from a feminine perspective.

    When you can find romance novels written about homeless cripples, get back to me.

    If my sexual attraction to women isn’t limited to signs of fertility, but responds to factors that can have no biological significance, then this is a serious challenge to the theory that we are entirely products of our biology, if many men share my strange outlook, which they do.

    No it isn't. The women you're talking about are plenty fertile enough for your purposes. You don't have to be only attracted to the absolute most fertile women in the world. Your idea that there's some sort of binary, where there are some people who get laid all the time, and some people who absolutely never do, under any circumstances, is a strawman.

    We cannot all be genetic freaks – that would be specual pleading to shore up a tottering theory.

    It's "tottering" a lot less than your "savages were noble and happy" theory. Find me a large group of men attracted to withered old ladies, and you'll be onto something.

    Most people who believe in evopsyche say we are simple products of our biology, and that all our actions can be explained in darwinian terms.

    Find me one single person who doesn't say that your own personal experiences shape things. Go ahead. Just one.

    What I am saying is that while that has some truth, it is a simplistic one dimensional model of the human psyche that conflicts with too many known facts to be taken seriously.

    You're one to talk about that. You are the guy who claimed that everything modern people do is to heal their wounds from not being hunter-gatherers anymore. Can you name me ANYONE who has taken that seriously since the early 20th century?

    Real world observations show that human conduct departs dramatically from biological expectations.

    Does it? Do the majority of people routinely seek out infectious disease?

    my response above was to you but it got lost in the coment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. I reference 50 Shades, wildly popular among exactly the type of women supposedly most insistent on egalitarianism.

    Case closed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I reference 50 Shades, wildly popular among exactly the type of women supposedly most insistent on egalitarianism.
     
    They're also the women who complain about toxic masculinity. And claim that they want men to be caring and sharing and sensitive.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. @MEH 0910

    and the oft-cited analogy between human races and differing breeds of dog, horse, or other domesticated animals would tend to support the notion that acculturation and training were more important in human development than mere differences in ancestry as such.
     
    You think you can acculturate and train a dumb Afghan Hound to do the job of an intelligent Border Collie? You think that Bloodhounds tracking ability is just a matter of acculturation and training, and breeding ancestry is insignificant?

    Now you and Jenner Ickham Errican are just being plain stupid, but that is pretty much the normal speed for people holding the beliefs you do. The fact that you would even ask this question proves that you are either extremely uncharitable when it comes to understanding other people’s arguments or you are an incurable case of Dunning-Kruger idiocy, and probably both. There really isn’t any point in answering you, since you are nothing but a pig-headed fool who wishes only to make snide remarks not to understand, but for the benefit of others reading this thread I will address your impertinent questions (and then invite you to go get your shine box).

    Bloodhounds and Border Collies did not breed themselves, did they? They were created over a relatively short period of time by a deliberate and very unnatural selection program that involved forced pairings, the heartless culling of most of the offspring, and yes, a rigorous training program that was necessary both for the development and the proof of the traits being bred for. This is so obviously true in the case of the Border Collie that one wonders how even you could have missed it, but no matter. The point is that Darwinism had nothing to do with it.

    The entire existence of the well-bred dog is “culture.” The culture of the man who hunts or ranches, in a specific clime and in a specific manner; who breeds, trains, and selects his animals, bringing out their native attributes for his own benefit, never for theirs. The mere existence of a breeding program necessitates the question of who is breeding whom, and to what end. If you could imagine these circumstances from the dog’s point of view, you would find yourself living under a whole socialist regime of the strictest tyranny, where your every natural inclination was ruthlessly channeled towards one exogenous and incomprehensible end, upon penalty of death for failure. The well-bred dog lives everyday in Kafka’s Trial, although thankfully he isn’t rational so he doesn’t realize it.

    That ought to give you some clue about the true, inner nature of captive breeding. The Bloodhound, the dairy cow, the laying hen, which of these animals have been “improved” (in the Darwinian sense) by the changes we’ve brought about in them? Are they “the fittest” now? Do they survive better in the wild? Do they reproduce more, outside of the breeding program itself? No, of course not. They exist now only to serve their human overlords with their very lives. They have been twisted, squeezed, mutilated into these shapes by means as un-native to life as the coppicing of a willow; and the fact that they were able to endure under such conditions, that they allowed these attributes to be educed out of them by the most relentless and unnatural pressure, is a stunning testament to the plasticity of life within the form. For captive breeding, far from establishing the truth of Darwinism, is yet again another proof of its opposite. Monumental phenotypic change can be wrung from the flesh in a short time, a matter of a few generations, without corresponding genotypic change, without speciation, and without benefiting the organism whatsoever.

    This extreme range of accidental change is required by the necessity for life to preserve itself under all adversity, i.e. to avoid substantial change, which means destruction. Thus, plasticity within the form is neither evolutionary nor progressive, but essentially conservative. It conserves the basic tendencies and direction of the organism (which it is not in anyone’s power to alter) at the expense of its accidental attributes, lest it perish altogether. Since, then, substantial change cannot be affected by even the most sustained, focused, and unnatural selective pressures, it would appear that evolution by natural selection does not occur.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thea
    It would seem human governments from time to time engage in attempts at selective breeding as well. They may rarely admit what they are doing.

    I feel this relates to your point but am having a hard time articulating it...

    For example, the Israeli government has clear policies such as marriage and migration laws designed to produce more Jewish babies. They may not be breeding for being good at math in particular but it is a side effect that the state can benefit from.

    So what exactly are our leaders trying to breed, if they have a plan? The whole promotion of both one night stands and birth control & abortion on college campuses seems designed to generate something with regards to the next generation. It's as if they want fewer college educated people having babies. But then tax systems tend to favor middle class families have a few, but not a lot, of children.
    , @Neil Templeton
    "Monumental phenotypic change can be wrung from the flesh in a short time, a matter of a few generations, without corresponding genotypic change, without speciation, and without benefiting the organism whatsoever."

    On what evidence do you assert that phenotypic change is not accompanied by genotypic change? True, a border collie and a pug can produce viable offspring, but their genomes are different. This should be self evident from observing the purebred offspring. There is no training regimen one could put a border collie bitch through to inspire her to give birth to pugs if she were bred by a collie dog. No one argued that the changes benefit the dogs in a "survival without humans" sense. The changes benefit the collies and pugs because the changes appeal to the humans who feed and care for the dogs, and allow them to breed.

    I read your basic argument to say that even selective breeding cannot change the essence of an animal. I respond that while it's true that man cannot yet breed dogs to become cats, or sheep to become cows, if given sufficient time we could likely breed a new species, that is, a collection that is fertile in-group but not out-group. I get it that there is more to life than sex, but sex has consequences, everyone knows it, and most animals, if given a choice, choose their mates with discrimination that reveals a preference for fitness.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. @prosa123
    "I hunted, killed, an butchered three deer last month. By myself. And let me tell you, it is a hell of a lot of work. (And that’s nothing compared to the Plains Indians spearing bison to death, and probably getting trampled half the time).
    I’m hardly Daniel Boone, but I don’t know a single woman who has ever done that"


    According to two surveys women made up 11% of hunters in the US in 2011 and 19% just two years later in 2013. While the surveys are from different sources (the US Fish & Wildlife Service in 2011, a trade group in 2013), and therefore the exact percentages may not be directly comparable, it's certain that the percentage is on the rise and is well past trivial levels.
    http://www.petersenshunting.com/hunting-culture/women-hunters-just-call-them-hunters/

    Women hunters are enough of a thing nowadays that gun makers are coming out with rifles and shotguns in women's models. These seem designed for smaller women, as most others can manage ordinary models.
    http://sportsafield.com/savage-lady-hunter/

    My sister-in-law is a hunter, and quite a good shot. She’s also worked at filleting and skinning for profit. She would be the first to tell you that men are the ones in charge during hunts. Indeed, she would do none of this were it not for her husband.

    Take it from a tough chick, who’s from a family of tough chicks: hunting is men’s work and glory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB
    I agreed that some portion of my attraction and behavior is based on biological factors - I said the biological substrate is real - I merely said a large portion of my behavior is based on factors that has zero biological significance in a Darwinian sense.

    In other words, humans are both creature and creator, as it used to be expressed.

    But even the most fundamentalist religions never denied that there is a heavy element of "creature" in man, nor would I dream of doing so.

    It is sadly all too undeniable.

    The problem with evo psyche is that it claims we are ALL "creature" - and this is a wish fulfillment fantasy of modern man. Yes, modern man wishes it were true, and builds his fantasy castles on science denial.

    Evo psyche is really an attempt to fashion man into a being preoccupied entirely by his biological substrate under the guise of an objective, neutral study of the facts. This has become increasingly clear to me.

    It is a polemical philosophical movement appealing to modern fantasies utilizing the scientific prestige vocabulary of its day to lend it an air of credibility despite its basis in wish-fulfillment.

    In fact, we as humans can choose to cultivate our biological preoccupations exclusively, as modern culture urges us to, or we can connect to our larger selves.

    If I am most sexually attracted to women who don't maximize signs of fertility, but who balance fertility with physical qualities that have no biological significance, then I am not a fertility maximizing machine, contrary to the claims of evo psyche.

    I merely said a large portion of my behavior is based on factors that has zero biological significance in a Darwinian sense.

    I don’t know who you’re arguing with then, because literally nobody ever doubted that.

    The problem with evo psyche is that it claims we are ALL “creature” – and this is a wish fulfillment fantasy of modern man.

    No. It is something for which there is evidence. The idea that we’re more than just “creatures” is wish-fulfillment for people who want to think they’re something special.

    Evo psyche is really an attempt to fashion man into a being preoccupied entirely by his biological substrate under the guise of an objective, neutral study of the facts.

    You arguing with it is really an attempt to fashion man into something other than just an animal.

    In fact, we as humans can choose to cultivate our biological preoccupations exclusively, as modern culture urges us to, or we can connect to our larger selves.

    You haven’t even proven that there IS such a thing as a “larger self”. Sounds a lot like wish-fulfillment to me.

    If I am most sexually attracted to women who don’t maximize signs of fertility, but who balance fertility with physical qualities that have no biological significance, then I am not a fertility maximizing machine, contrary to the claims of evo psyche.

    Well, you might very well be. For example, if you’re a wimpy little guy living in Williamsburg, perhaps you’ve just learned that the pretentious women might actually give you a shot, unlike the actually hot women. If you went after the hot ones, you’d be wasting time that you could be spending going after the problem glasses girls.

    And if I had to guess, you’ve had a lot more actual sexual experience with the pretentious girls than with the hot ones, so you’ve just learned to associate the glasses with the sex.

    So there are all kinds of explanations for the way people act that don’t contradict evopsych theories at all.

    It’s kind of like how humans evolved to have fear responses to snakes. Some people have that response more strongly than others. There are people who have gotten over that response completely. Some people have even learned to like snakes and keep them as pets. But that does not, in any way, change the fact that it is a response we’ve come by due to evolution, and nobody would deny that we have evolved to have that response. For some strange reason, when it comes to personal attraction, people like to pretend that it’s different somehow.

    And at no point did it ever occur to you to have sex with a rock or a withered old hag, now did it? You can pretend you’re something better than an animal, and I know that’s a comforting belief to a lot of people, but it’s basically an illusion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Scienctific theories are tested by their ability to predict real world results - evo psyche makes claims that fail this test, and others that fulfill it, leading to the conclusion that it is a partial explanation.

    As you say, I am not attracted to hags or diseased women, but I am also not necessarily attracted to maximally fertile women, and respond sexually to traits that have no Darwinian significance.

    Evo psyche fails to predict significant features of the male sexual archetypes of other eras and cultures, as well.

    If soft effeminate men are considered sexy - not merely desirable as good providers - in some cultures and eras, and among some groups today, that's a failure of prediction.

    Now, I am well aware that evo psyche can explain literally everything after the fact. Much like Freudianism, nothing can disprove it.

    For instance, everything can simply be claimed as an adaptive trait by its mere survival - since only adaptive traits survive, everything that exists is an adaptive trait.

    This is a mere tautology - it assumes what it seeks to prove. A surprising amount of the modern belief system is tautologucal in this sense.

    Freud, too, simply defined all objections to his theory as unconscious resistance, just as evo psyche defines religion and morality as adaptive traits, by definition, since they exist.

    I am reminded of when I once asked heartiste to explain why a kind, gentle, soft man I knew was great with women - his response was tautological. The man was by definition an alpha, because he was popular with women. This tautology was supposed to make us forget that his very specific list of alpha traits had dramatically failed to predict a real world outcome.

    Evo psyche fails as a predictive tool, but by definition cannot fail as an explanatory scheme, since it assumes what it sets out to prove.

    If only adaptive traits survive, then by definition all our behavior is adaptive.

    When it doesn't come to making sure airplanes don't fall out of the sky, the modern mind seems surprisingly drawn to these tautologucal explanatory schemes and strangely unable to distinguish it from genuine science or logical proof.

    It's a curious feature of the modern mind that I've noticed on another thread in connection with science - the assumptions of science are held to have been proven by the methods of science (the decision to only study material objects is held to have proven that only physical objects exist)

    I would say a defining feature of modernity is a partiality for tautological explanations and a
    curious inability to recognize this as characteristic of their approach. They seem to actually believe they are engaging in science or logical proof!

    Well! We've probably taken this discussion as far as possible between two people so widely separated by basic assumptions, I guess we have to agree to disagree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments