The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Science Denialism in "Scientific American"
🔊 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:

Darwin Was Sexist, and So Are Many Modern Scientists

For far too long, Darwinian theory has justified sexist attitudes and behavior

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.

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

 
Hide 175 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. This is a time, part of me thinks, for men to listen to women rather than pontificating about sexism

    Ha! Not when you can score points and push your idiotic agenda, right Horgan? What sphincter relaxation produced this raft? Anyone want to take bets on when John Horgan gets Me Tooed?

    Read More
    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    Indeed. This kind of PC trash is why I canceled my subscription to SA ten years ago...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/science-denialism-in-scientific-american/#comment-2125968
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Science has morphed from an intellectual pursuit with strict standards into just another social-political cudgel by which we may harass and oppress white males. Any science not appropriate for this purpose is ipso facto not science. Hope this clarifies things for you all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    Scientific America has been leftist for some time.

    That Horgan guy has no training in any STEM subject, just journalism.
    , @TheJester
    I agree ...

    I recently browsed through a copy of Scientific American at a doctor's office. I was shocked at the obvious political correctness, bias, and low-brow content for a magazine that used to summarize the bleeding-edge of science for math-disabled people like me.

    There was the politically correct racial and the gender-based mix of authors that ensured that Whites, Blacks, Asians, and women all had balanced representation. There were a surprising number of "soft" articles from female authors on touchy-feely subjects that had little to do with "science".

    The long march of Cultural Marxism through our institutions continues ...
    , @Pat Boyle
    The reason, I like others here, stopped reading Scientific American is that it ceased being either Scientific or American decades ago. The magazine was bought by a left wing German company and quickly became unrecognizable. In the old days major scientists published largely politics free articles on their research interests. Then it became just another pop science magazine like "Discovery" but with a strong ideological bent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. I mostly remembered it from the ’90s when it was a reasonably respectable general interest mag that avoided Popular Mechanics style buffoonery (flying cars! Next year! We swear this time!). However I also remember running across some Scientific American issues from back in the early 70s (I believe) and being shocked at how highbrow it had been. It was just slightly below the level of a real peer reviewed journal. So the descent has been stretched over a good 40 years and now it seems it has landed just slightly above the level of People magazine. Actually at this point I much prefer PopMech since they seem to embrace their own campiness.

    Neither the term “Scientific”, nor the term “American”, have any real meaning in our modern society so I’m not surprised this has happened.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tim Howells

    Popular Mechanics style buffoonery (flying cars! Next year! We swear this time!)
     
    But didn't you hear? We really are getting cars this year!! (or maybe next...)

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2015/03/16/finally-a-flying-car-could-go-on-sale-as-soon-as-2017/#29df77881255
    , @Unladen Swallow
    Scientific American was still a pretty serious magazine even in late 80's-early 90's, but within a couple of years IIRC it had gone over to the pop-science format with journalists writing everything. Prior to that it had real top scientists publish articles about their actual research in it's pages, that would be inconceivable today.
    , @Inquiring Mind
    Why the shade thrown on Popular Mechanics? Flying cars -- are you thinking about Popular Science?

    Since we are talking about sexual dimorphism, what counts for "women's magazines" are those featured at the supermarket checkout counter for impulse purchase. Besides the "tabloids" lead by National Enquirer, what do you see there? Cosmopolitan, no? With its cover showing a half-naked female model each issue? And its completely sex-obsessed article headlines?

    So then what is a men's magazine? Playbox? Esquire? A true men's magazine is Popular Mechanics, which I had seen once at the supermarket checkout when its cover was "We fly the B-2 Stealth Bomber." This is something men want to know, especially since so few of them were ever made and only a figurative handful of men, yes men, have ever taken the controls. And if you are wondering as most men do, the B-2 is "fly-by-wire", piloted through a "joy stick", and its aerodynamic handling is heavily mediated by a computer algorithm, so it flies much like the Anglo-French Airbus family of passenger jets, which pretty much settles the question.

    Now at the risk of offending earnest 9-11 Truthers among iSteve's loyal readers, Popular Mechanics has been a serious publication in addressing the claim "But steel doesn't burn" that had been a talking point on, you guessed it, The View, although I don't recall whether it was Joy Behar or Whoopi Goldberg offering that bit of material science and metallurgical insight.

    Popular Mechanics devoted page space to explaining that if steel doesn't catch fire, it could certainly soften and hence weaken if exposed to a raging jet-fuel-fed fire. There was a major public university with a male, Mechanical Engineering professor as its Provost (whose engineering specialization, by the way, was in combustion), who was in the eye-of-the-storm and offering a lame defense regarding some non-tenured instructor who was teaching Trutherism in the classroom. There was a suggestion of buying the Provost a subscription.

    , @Desiderius
    The big sellout was right around the turn of the century.

    It rotted from the head down.
    , @Philip Owen
    I so agree from 1977, when I first took out a subscription to about 2008 when I stopped, Unvalued it so much that I bound the copies annually. It had become The New Scientist. Now ...
    , @AndrewR
    This guy really is a piece of work. He race-baits, puts words in others' mouths and uses boilerplate SJW rhetoric in order to explicitly degrade white males.

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/google-engineer-fired-for-sexist-memo-isnt-a-hero/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Luke Lea says:

    Certainly a sexual division of labor is a feature of all hunter/gatherer societies, if that is what you mean. There is also sexual dimorphism (in strength and size) among humans and lots of other differences. Sexism is nature’s way and not just among people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Right. It was egalitarian in the sense that there were no classes, inequality, etc. That came with agriculture, surplus of food, civilization.

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/943712191320117248
    , @Peter Akuleyev
    My impression is that sexual dimorphism is much more noticeable in settled agricultural societies than in hunter gatherer societies. Which makes sense if you think about it, the division of labor in most agricultural societies requires men to be very strong - moving rocks, clearing fields, controlling livestock, even dragging plows; while women were often taking care of children, mending, etc. The hunting bit in most hunter - gatherer societies is more about fishing, killing small animals and trapping, none of which require men to be significantly stronger or faster than women.

    So Horgan is probably right that hunter gatherer societies were more egalitarian. But he is ignoring the fact that most of us are descended from settled agrarian people, not hunter gatherers, and 5000 years has been enough time to accentuate the biological differences between men and women. Particularly in European and Middle Eastern societies, maybe somewhat less in Asia and Africa.
    , @helena
    Have you seen hbd chick's twitter? There's a tweet quoted from someone replying to someone making that very same claim. It goes like this~:

    "I'm afraid science doesn't show that at all. Humans aren't sexually dimporphic, and sexologists, biologists, anthropologists, neuroscientists and geneticists have recognised a diversity of gender and sex categories for decades. Binary sex/gender is a recent Western invention."

    Are you crying or laughing?
    , @TomSchmidt
    This is still the canonical satire on feminism applied in biology:
    https://www.theonion.com/study-finds-sexism-rampant-in-nature-1819566369

    Man, that's funny.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Svigor says:

    Actually, Saini points out, anthropological research has revealed that hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian.

    In other news, homeless encampments don’t support much in the way of vertical social structures.

    Nature’s very egalitarian. One day you’re eating the bear, and the next, the bear is eating you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Trelane says:

    Like the Holy Roman Empire which was not holy, nor Roman and not an empire, Scientific American is neither scientific nor American. It’s published by some outfit based out of Germany. They may be connected to Rammstein or Kraftwerk, the Green Party, Volkswagen emissions labs, Liederhosen, beer gardens and Merkel’s boner but that magazine is not scientific and it sure ain’t American.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hail

    it sure ain’t American.
     
    Wiki sez:

    Scientific American was founded by inventor and publisher Rufus M. Porter in 1845[1792–1884; "Rufus Porter descended from an old colonial New England family"] as a four-page weekly newspaper. Throughout its early years, much emphasis was placed on reports of what was going on at the U.S. Patent Office. It also reported on a broad range of inventions including perpetual motion machines
     
    But then:

    In 1986, it was sold to the Holtzbrinck group of Germany, which has owned it since. ["Holtzbrinck Publishing Group is a privately-held Stuttgart-based company which owns publishing companies worldwide. The company has published a wide variety of books, from The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie to classics by Agatha Christie, Jean-Paul Sartre, Ernest Hemingway and John Updike."]
     
    So Scientific American was saved by Germans. Finally, for once, they get to be the Good Guys.

    But...uh oh...Guess what else is true: It seems that the founder George von Holtzbrinck (1909-1983) was a member of the NS German Students League at age 22 in 1931. :(
    , @black thumb
    SA began the slide into oblivion during the Reagan admin. They pointed out glaring frauds by his policy wonks and their reward has been destruction by the Rethuglicans. The last attempt by SA was a feeble effort to keep LNG tankers out of Boston harbor. It failed, in spite of mountainous evidence, and reich wing vengance was swift and complete. Now the american science and engineering people are helping the SJW freaks devour what little is left. Most of us red-neck white trash used to admire and respect those in academia, now adays, not-so-much.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Hail says: • Website

    One of the suggested stories at the bottom of the link:

    Should Research on Race and IQ Be Banned?” (2013)

    The trigger this time is social scientist Jason Richwine, who recently co-authored a study [contending] that granting amnesty to illegal immigrants could cost the U.S. more than $5 trillion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/scientific-american-ban-race-and-iq/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Hail says: • Website

    More penetrating analysis from the Author:

    John Horgan (@Horganism) Tweeted:

    Should ‘great’ white men of science be knocked off pedestals?

    Edit:
    I see this “depedestaling science racists” issue has been commented upon here at Isteve.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Luke Lea
    Certainly a sexual division of labor is a feature of all hunter/gatherer societies, if that is what you mean. There is also sexual dimorphism (in strength and size) among humans and lots of other differences. Sexism is nature's way and not just among people.

    Right. It was egalitarian in the sense that there were no classes, inequality, etc. That came with agriculture, surplus of food, civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Right. It was egalitarian in the sense that there were no classes, inequality, etc. That came with agriculture, surplus of food, civilization.

    You are implying that hunter-gatherer society was monogamous. Was that indeed the case?
    , @Luke Lea
    "One more thing: KSR on the beginning of economic inequality. pic.twitter.com/9JOjDdGEHg"

    You might like The Adam and Eve Story in its Mesopotamian Context: https://goo.gl/uikvFb
    , @TomSchmidt
    How did the farmers go for months without others overrunning their fields? The soldiers MUST have preceded the farmers. See Jane Jacobs' The Economy of Cities, where she explains (confirmed by recent archeological evidence) that agriculture MUST have developed in cities.
    , @AnotherDad

    Right. It was egalitarian in the sense that there were no classes, inequality, etc. That came with agriculture, surplus of food, civilization.
     
    Thanks Dave. Yeah i'm continually surprised that there are apparently a bunch of even pretty smart people--commenters here even--who just don't seem to have any understanding of this complete phase change of human history with the neolithic.

    That is the start of hierachary and the looting class. Hunter-gathers might attack another tribe to protect (or take) hunting/gathering territory and might well steal their women and annihilate them. In fact, that happened a lot. But there generally wasn't that much beyond women that could be stolen. Certainly nothing that could be *repeatedly* stolen to live off of.

    The looting and parasite classes start with the neolithic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Dan Hayes says:

    Steve,

    This article is just another manifestation of Scientific American’s unhinged PC agenda. Probably the prime example of SA’s over-the-top political agenda is its drumbeating support for purported global climate change (rechristened from global warming).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Pretty much all magazines are like this now. Scientific American, Natl Geographic, my friggin car magazines even. (Automobile just ran a two-issue, 27-page extended essay on the Mexican border and why borders are wrong.) The mags won't be missed, though once they were wonderful.

    http://www.automobilemag.com/news/2017-ram-power-wagon-southern-border-part-2-nogales-gulf-of-mexico/

    The author runs into a Genuine White Person too:

    "It would be tempting to write him off entirely, but he thoroughly believes the things he’s afraid of. He believes them even if there’s nothing there, and he’s not some insane panhandler. He’s a land owner. A voter."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. J.Ross says: • Website

    One day a woman will begin to “deconstruct” the “alleged” female physical inferiority and she’ll stop because her conversation partner just reached across the table and slapped her like a de Gaulle era Frenchman.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. CCZ says:

    A detailed and well documented challenge to romanticizing the “egalitarianism” of hunter-gatherer societies appears in the December 2017 Quillette article:

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

    But what about egalitarianism? In a 2004 study, Michael Gurven marshals an impressive amount of cross-cultural data and notes that hunters tend to keep more of their kill for themselves and their families than they share with others.12 While there is undeniably a great deal of sharing across hunter-gatherer societies, common notions of generalized equality are greatly overstated. 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.

    It’s a nice idea to believe that somewhere deep in the past, or still today in a more remote part of the world, there existed or exists a society that has figured it all out; where everyone is healthy and happy and equal, untouched by the difficulties of modern living. But even if violence, inequality, discrimination, and other social problems are universal and part of human nature, that doesn’t mean their prevalence can’t be reduced. They can and recent trends make this abundantly clear. Denying the scope of the problem, pretending that these social issues are uniquely modern or uniquely Western, or the product of agriculture or capitalism, does not help to fix our contemporary social ills. Instead it leaves us more confused about the causes of these problems, and, consequently, less equipped to solve them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. L Woods says:

    The article’s right. Patriarchy is a cornerstone of civilization. A lack of it is a mark of uncivilization.

    Read More
    • Agree: dfordoom
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Horgan is useless. I read his book The End of Science when it first came out, not knowing anything about the man. The only thing he proved to me was that if scientific advances had to rely on men like Horgan, it would be the end of science.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Mr. Anon says:

    Darwin Was Sexist, and So Are Many Modern Scientists

    For far too long, Darwinian theory has justified sexist attitudes and behavior

    And – after all – who are you going to believe in matters of science? Charles Darwin (whoever that is!) and a bunch of scientists, or J-school grad John Horgan?

    Remember, John Horgan is smarter than you.

    He has a masters degree…………innnnnnn Journalism!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Dan Hayes
    Steve,

    This article is just another manifestation of Scientific American's unhinged PC agenda. Probably the prime example of SA's over-the-top political agenda is its drumbeating support for purported global climate change (rechristened from global warming).

    Pretty much all magazines are like this now. Scientific American, Natl Geographic, my friggin car magazines even. (Automobile just ran a two-issue, 27-page extended essay on the Mexican border and why borders are wrong.) The mags won’t be missed, though once they were wonderful.

    http://www.automobilemag.com/news/2017-ram-power-wagon-southern-border-part-2-nogales-gulf-of-mexico/

    The author runs into a Genuine White Person too:

    “It would be tempting to write him off entirely, but he thoroughly believes the things he’s afraid of. He believes them even if there’s nothing there, and he’s not some insane panhandler. He’s a land owner. A voter.”

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That white person had the temerity to imply that his country is being overrun. And there's much more, but I won't bore you except to remind you that this is supposed to be a car magazine, and BTW: "We’ve Temporarily Removed Comments"
    , @Jack Highlands
    The market for this increasingly poor content will finally die with the last synapse keeping the last Boomer out of a nursing home.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Hail says: • Website
    @Trelane
    Like the Holy Roman Empire which was not holy, nor Roman and not an empire, Scientific American is neither scientific nor American. It's published by some outfit based out of Germany. They may be connected to Rammstein or Kraftwerk, the Green Party, Volkswagen emissions labs, Liederhosen, beer gardens and Merkel's boner but that magazine is not scientific and it sure ain't American.

    it sure ain’t American.

    Wiki sez:

    Scientific American was founded by inventor and publisher Rufus M. Porter in 1845[1792–1884; "Rufus Porter descended from an old colonial New England family"] as a four-page weekly newspaper. Throughout its early years, much emphasis was placed on reports of what was going on at the U.S. Patent Office. It also reported on a broad range of inventions including perpetual motion machines

    But then:

    In 1986, it was sold to the Holtzbrinck group of Germany, which has owned it since. ["Holtzbrinck Publishing Group is a privately-held Stuttgart-based company which owns publishing companies worldwide. The company has published a wide variety of books, from The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie to classics by Agatha Christie, Jean-Paul Sartre, Ernest Hemingway and John Updike."]

    So Scientific American was saved by Germans. Finally, for once, they get to be the Good Guys.

    But…uh oh…Guess what else is true: It seems that the founder George von Holtzbrinck (1909-1983) was a member of the NS German Students League at age 22 in 1931. :(

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Hail:

    The Holtzbrinck Group continues their mission of spreading (ie, propagandizing) their biased version of the truth.

    , @Trelane
    I know, that's what I'm talking about. Even when a German does the right thing it always turns out he was a member of the Bund or relocated to Brazil to work in a Volkswagen plant. What's wrong with these Germanic types anyway? They certainly ruined Scientific American. Do you remember what that magazine did to Bjorn Lomborg in the late 1990s? It was like Ron Unz's American Pravda, something between a dystopian nightmare and a Bolshevik rewrite of rationality. It was sick. I've never bought a copy of Sciam since.
    , @Anonymous
    Hate to belabor it but ScAm was only acquired by the Nazi company after the latter merged with Springer (not Jerry), best known for its overpriced textbook supplementals and phony pharmaceutical research peer review.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Yan Shen says:

    Sure but as Steve has been pointing out, in sub-Saharan Africa the problem historically has been how to get the men to do more of the work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Pretty much all magazines are like this now. Scientific American, Natl Geographic, my friggin car magazines even. (Automobile just ran a two-issue, 27-page extended essay on the Mexican border and why borders are wrong.) The mags won't be missed, though once they were wonderful.

    http://www.automobilemag.com/news/2017-ram-power-wagon-southern-border-part-2-nogales-gulf-of-mexico/

    The author runs into a Genuine White Person too:

    "It would be tempting to write him off entirely, but he thoroughly believes the things he’s afraid of. He believes them even if there’s nothing there, and he’s not some insane panhandler. He’s a land owner. A voter."

    That white person had the temerity to imply that his country is being overrun. And there’s much more, but I won’t bore you except to remind you that this is supposed to be a car magazine, and BTW: “We’ve Temporarily Removed Comments

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    this is supposed to be a car magazine
     
    I don't know what was worse in that link: the turgid prose, or the sappy sentimentality.

    I was waiting for some discussion of the vehicle they were driving. I guess they didn't want to distract from the politicizing. They did mention that it had leather seats.

    They wax on about the scenic beauty, not considering that the policies they implicitly endorse will soon have those places covered with trash, houses, and strip malls.


    We’re happy to spend billions building a better mop to sop up the tide of individuals and narcotics spilling over our border, but we’re reluctant to help Mexico pull itself out of the economic gutter that funnels people and drugs to our door. The U.S. needs a strong and prosperous Mexico, one humming with jobs and opportunity.
     
    Invade the world; invite the world; invest in the world (i.e. give them money for nothing.)
    , @JerseyJeffersonian
    The best "comment" that readers could, and perhaps should, make is to cancel their subscriptions, and to let them know exactly why they refuse to spend money on this magazine any longer. Doubt it would work to change their minds; the arc of leftist history demands that they double down despite evidence that those with sense are not buying it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Dan Hayes says:
    @Hail

    it sure ain’t American.
     
    Wiki sez:

    Scientific American was founded by inventor and publisher Rufus M. Porter in 1845[1792–1884; "Rufus Porter descended from an old colonial New England family"] as a four-page weekly newspaper. Throughout its early years, much emphasis was placed on reports of what was going on at the U.S. Patent Office. It also reported on a broad range of inventions including perpetual motion machines
     
    But then:

    In 1986, it was sold to the Holtzbrinck group of Germany, which has owned it since. ["Holtzbrinck Publishing Group is a privately-held Stuttgart-based company which owns publishing companies worldwide. The company has published a wide variety of books, from The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie to classics by Agatha Christie, Jean-Paul Sartre, Ernest Hemingway and John Updike."]
     
    So Scientific American was saved by Germans. Finally, for once, they get to be the Good Guys.

    But...uh oh...Guess what else is true: It seems that the founder George von Holtzbrinck (1909-1983) was a member of the NS German Students League at age 22 in 1931. :(

    Hail:

    The Holtzbrinck Group continues their mission of spreading (ie, propagandizing) their biased version of the truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @boogerbently
    Recently in the news:

    https://www.thewrap.com/fcc-sinclair-broadcasting-fine/

    "Sinclair Broadcast Group is an American telecommunications company that is owned by the family of company founder Julian Sinclair Smith. Headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland, the company is the largest television station operator in the United States by number of stations, and largest by total coverage; owning and/or operating a total of 193 stations across the country (233 after all currently proposed sales are approved) in over 100 markets (covering 40% of American households), many of which are located in the South and Midwest. Sinclair also owns four digital multicast networks (Comet, Charge!, Stadium, and TBD) and one cable network (Tennis Channel), and owns or operates four radio stations (all based in the Pacific Northwest region)."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Hail says: • Website

    Horgan graduated from the Columbia University School of Journalism in 1983.

    He was at Columbia with Barack Obama.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    He was at Columbia with Barack Obama.

    Not sure what the total enrollment was in 1982. As we speak, I think it's over 30,000. BO would have been enrolled in the undergraduate division of the arts and science faculty, which is a small fraction of the whole. The J-School degree is a one-year program, if I'm not mistaken.
    , @Old Palo Altan
    Nobody was at Columbia with Barack Obama.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Anon • Disclaimer says:

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

    Even if true, it’s because when people got little or nothing, they are equal in savagery.

    A guy with loincloth, woman with loincloth, living in a hut, with food on their minds.

    Yep, that’s equal alright.

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

    A broad review of the literature reveals “only the tiniest gaps, if any, between the sexes, including areas such as mathematical ability and verbal fluency,” Saini writes.

    Who is lying here, Horgan or Saini? Naturally, this isn’t a review at all. It’s a single study, from 2000, with a mere N~6,000, subject to all kind of caveats. As opposed to the SAT/ACT scores that are counted in millions and are available for decades.

    Incidentally, for the LMAO factor, that Indian striver’s (Saini) previous book was “Geek Nation: How Indian Science is Taking Over the World” (https://www.amazon.com/Geek-Nation-Indian-Science-Taking/dp/1444710168), with its cover featuring phoropter, a device invented in New York by a white guy called Henry De Zeng.

    Read More
    • LOL: bomag
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    In primitive societies, problems of sexual harassment are dealt in two ways.

    If a guy grabs another guy’s woman, the woman’s guy takes a club and knocks him over the head. Lesson learned.

    Or the guy grabs another guy’s woman, the woman’s guy protests, and the grabber takes the club and knocks the woman’s guy over the head. The woman now belongs to him, and that’s that.

    Also, women’s problems are minimal cuz a woman is expected to be mate-mother pretty early. Women don’t have career choices and put off wife-mothering for ‘power’. She just fits into social norm.

    So, I say let’s bring back hunter-gatherism. Women should just find some guy, marry, have kids, and gather food, aka go shopping.

    PS. I’m the only true sex-ist. Ism means belief, and sex + ism = belief in the reality of sexes and sexual differences.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. I saw Robert Wright debating Horgan on bloggingheads.tv.

    Until I saw him in action there, I didn’t fully realize what a lightweight Horgan was. He genuinely doesn’t seem to understand anything. This poses no impediment to his pontificating.

    Read More
    • Agree: Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I didn’t fully realize what a lightweight Horgan was. He genuinely doesn’t seem to understand anything.
     
    You know this is pretty much the ideal c.v. for a professional journalist...
    , @Anonymous IV
    Horgan's M.O. for writing a book is to line up 10-12 experts, then go interview each one. Each interview becomes a chapter in the book. Tack on an intro and a summing-it-up concluding chapter, and you've got a book! At no point does Horgan himself do any heavy lifting intellectually. (Actually this "collection of interviews" approach to book writing is pretty common among journalists these days--not unique to Horgan.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Trelane says:
    @Hail

    it sure ain’t American.
     
    Wiki sez:

    Scientific American was founded by inventor and publisher Rufus M. Porter in 1845[1792–1884; "Rufus Porter descended from an old colonial New England family"] as a four-page weekly newspaper. Throughout its early years, much emphasis was placed on reports of what was going on at the U.S. Patent Office. It also reported on a broad range of inventions including perpetual motion machines
     
    But then:

    In 1986, it was sold to the Holtzbrinck group of Germany, which has owned it since. ["Holtzbrinck Publishing Group is a privately-held Stuttgart-based company which owns publishing companies worldwide. The company has published a wide variety of books, from The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie to classics by Agatha Christie, Jean-Paul Sartre, Ernest Hemingway and John Updike."]
     
    So Scientific American was saved by Germans. Finally, for once, they get to be the Good Guys.

    But...uh oh...Guess what else is true: It seems that the founder George von Holtzbrinck (1909-1983) was a member of the NS German Students League at age 22 in 1931. :(

    I know, that’s what I’m talking about. Even when a German does the right thing it always turns out he was a member of the Bund or relocated to Brazil to work in a Volkswagen plant. What’s wrong with these Germanic types anyway? They certainly ruined Scientific American. Do you remember what that magazine did to Bjorn Lomborg in the late 1990s? It was like Ron Unz’s American Pravda, something between a dystopian nightmare and a Bolshevik rewrite of rationality. It was sick. I’ve never bought a copy of Sciam since.

    Read More
    • Agree: Frau Katze
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    They certainly ruined Scientific American.
     
    You seem to imply that all the other magazines not bought by Germans (i.e. the vast majority of magazines) are alright.
    , @TomSchmidt
    I find IEEE spectrum gives me some of the broader scientific view withou the PC that SciAm used to.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Thomas says:

    hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian …”

    But who would want to live their lives as hunter-gatherers? Obviously early humans did not. And the assumption that people haven’t evolved even in the 15,000 years since agriculture seems unlikely.

    In any case, anyone who would think that the hunter-gatherer life for women would have been an egalitarian idyll should either have a child or live with a woman having a child, through the two- or three-year cycle of pregnancy, childbirth, and nursing without the benefit of infant formula or modern medicine, and see if that alters their perspective. The idea that prehistory must have been a breeze for women is an idea that could only arise in a culture in which the basic mechanisms and vagaries of human reproduction have become highly medicalized and, to an increasing number of people, largely obscure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes

    The idea that prehistory must have been a breeze for women is an idea that could only arise in a culture in which the basic mechanisms and vagaries of human reproduction have become highly medicalized and, to an increasing number of people, largely obscure.
     
    Or prehistory as a breeze for men...

    Perhaps this has always been the case, but there's an awful lot of retconning of history going on lately, ISTM. People that appear to have never studied history/anthropology declaiming on how terrible social conditions are now, and how wonderful they once were before the current age.

    As if equally savage and impoverished is the model of an egalitarian world one should aspire to...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. If there were any hunter-gatherer tribes where the moms and dads took turns deciding who would go hunt that day, and who would stay home and care for the infant, I’m pretty sure no one today is walking around with their genes.

    Read More
    • LOL: another fred
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Yeah, weren’t the Yanomami, studied by Napoleon Chagnon, perfect examples of egalitarian hunter gatherers?

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

    Yeah, ok, there was all this homicide, and the men did all that. And, yeah, the women loved to marry the men with the most killings.

    But otherwise, egalitarian. You could hardly tell the sexes apart.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The Yanomami are not a hunting-gathering but a gardening society. There are very few genuine hunter-gatherers left, and I think they are somewhat more egalitarian than the Yanomami. They are also not very representative, because only the poorest, least inhabitable parts of the planet are left for them, and so they tend to be so extremely poor that they simply cannot afford to have large differences in wealth.

    Regarding differences between the sexes, of course there are no gender-equality utopias anywhere.
    , @a reader
    Thanks.

    From the article you link to, some examples of paradisiac egalitarianism:

    The women are responsible for many domestic duties and chores, excluding hunting and killing game for food. Although the women do not hunt, they do work in the gardens and gather fruits, tubers, nuts and other wild foodstuffs.
     


    Women are expected to carry 70 to 80 pounds (32 to 36 kg) of crops on their backs during harvesting, using bark straps and woven baskets.
     

    In the mornings, while the men are off hunting, the women and young children go off in search of termite nests and other grubs.The women also pursue frogs, terrestrial crabs, or caterpillars, or even look for vines that can be woven into baskets. While some women gather these small sources of food, other women go off and fish for several hours during the day.[21] The women also prepare cassava, shredding the roots and expressing the toxic juice, then roasting the flour to make flat cakes, which they cook over a small pile of coals
     

    Yanomami women are expected to take responsibility for the children, who are expected to help their mothers with domestic chores from a very young age, and mothers rely very much on help from their daughters. Boys typically become the responsibility of the male members of the community after about age 8.
     

    The start of menstruation symbolizes the beginning of womanhood. Girls typically start menstruation around the age of 12-15.[24][25] Girls are often betrothed before menarche and the marriage may only be consummated once the girl starts menstruating, though the taboo is often violated and many girls become sexually active before then.
     

    Up until the time of menstruation, girls are treated as children, and are only responsible for assisting their mothers in household work. When they approach the age of menstruation, they are sought out by males as potential wives.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. MEH 0910 says:
    @Hail
    One of the suggested stories at the bottom of the link:

    "Should Research on Race and IQ Be Banned?" (2013)

    The trigger this time is social scientist Jason Richwine, who recently co-authored a study [contending] that granting amnesty to illegal immigrants could cost the U.S. more than $5 trillion.
     
    Read More
    • Replies: @Hail
    Is it really 4.5 years since Jason Richwine was purged? (May 2013).

    What has he been doing? He was only 31 upon his purge.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Shortly after the revised edition of Stephen J. Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man” came out, a journal published a peer-reviewed meta review of the book that consisted of excerpts and commentary of every review in a science journal as well as selected reviews in mainstream publications, with the author’s commentary. Every scientific review but one was negative; every mainstream reveiw positive. The negative scientific review? Scientific American. Today Scientific American would automatically be considered a mainstream consumer publication, but this shows that at the time it was considered to be at least a borderline science journal of sorts. I remember it being really geeky and impenetrable when I was a kid (other than Martin Gardner).

    I think that the explanation of what’s happening in publishing is that most of these publications are based in New York, and they have to get their staff from somewhere. When you hire new writers you’re talking people who have graduated from college within the last ten or twenty years. These people majored in some sort of “studies.” They fall into the low-pay-per-year-of-education (or per-I.Q.-point) category of worker. All this adds up to their being radicalized and bitter. When you have a staff of these people, there’s not a lot a publisher or editorial director can do to hold them back. They want to apply critical theory to whatever they write about, no matter how irrelevant it may be in the eyes of normal people, and they don’t want any get-off-my-lawners telling them otherwise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @candid_observer
    I saw Robert Wright debating Horgan on bloggingheads.tv.

    Until I saw him in action there, I didn't fully realize what a lightweight Horgan was. He genuinely doesn't seem to understand anything. This poses no impediment to his pontificating.

    I didn’t fully realize what a lightweight Horgan was. He genuinely doesn’t seem to understand anything.

    You know this is pretty much the ideal c.v. for a professional journalist…

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

    Except for that whole hunter-gatherer part of the hunter-gatherer societies, but otherwise …

    See, this is a perfect joke. It’s great. But the I F*cking Love Science types won’t even get that it’s supposed to be a joke.

    What are people like us supposed to do?

    It’s maddening.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    But the I F*cking Love Science types won’t even get that it’s supposed to be a joke.
     
    They F*cking Love Science. They don't F*cking Understand Science.
    , @Dieter Kief

    See, this is a perfect joke. It’s great. But the I F*cking Love Science types won’t even get that it’s supposed to be a joke.

    What are people like us supposed to do?

    It’s maddening.
     

    Jokes - ahh -Freud said: Jokes are closely related to an open aggression - and what you are talking about is caring - you care about those, who do not laugh - you got that entirely wrong: Because it's fun, really, if somebody makes you laugh - give it a try.

    And afterwards -back - or ahead! - to the arguments against those, who didn't - or wouldn't, - laugh!

    ( But before that: A good laugh - if sardonic, that'd be allright too, mesays).

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

    How the Hell do these self proclaimed ‘experts’ *know* what were the ‘societal attitudes’ of people who died tens of thousands of years ago, who left behind absolutely zero in the way of written records?

    All I can say – based on ‘mere common sense’, that it seems to me ‘exceedingly unlikely’ in the least that *any* society of men in *any* historic time period – except the deranged and pussified present – would allow themselves to be so degraded as to allow women to boss them about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    It it has happened in the present, why would you think it unlikely that it happened in the past?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Trelane
    I know, that's what I'm talking about. Even when a German does the right thing it always turns out he was a member of the Bund or relocated to Brazil to work in a Volkswagen plant. What's wrong with these Germanic types anyway? They certainly ruined Scientific American. Do you remember what that magazine did to Bjorn Lomborg in the late 1990s? It was like Ron Unz's American Pravda, something between a dystopian nightmare and a Bolshevik rewrite of rationality. It was sick. I've never bought a copy of Sciam since.

    They certainly ruined Scientific American.

    You seem to imply that all the other magazines not bought by Germans (i.e. the vast majority of magazines) are alright.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. neutral says:

    It is clear that Scientific American is neither scientific or even very American. Here are some other names that need to be changed to reflect what they really are.

    - “National Review” to “Internationalist Review”
    - “The Guardian” to “The Attacker” (as in attacking all those that stand in the way of the deep state narratives).
    - “The Economist” to “The Globalist”
    - “Vox” (which is Latin for “voice”) to the more precise “The Establishment Voice”
    - “BBC” to “GBC” (G standing for global as there is nothing British about the BBC)
    - “Washington Post” to “The CIA Post” (ok this one is not needed that much because most know what Washington implies)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev

    - “The Economist” to “The Globalist”
     
    Why? What's the difference?
    , @Hail

    - “The Economist” to “The Globalist”
     
    "The Dismal Globalist".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @candid_observer
    Yeah, weren't the Yanomami, studied by Napoleon Chagnon, perfect examples of egalitarian hunter gatherers?

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

    Yeah, ok, there was all this homicide, and the men did all that. And, yeah, the women loved to marry the men with the most killings.

    But otherwise, egalitarian. You could hardly tell the sexes apart.

    The Yanomami are not a hunting-gathering but a gardening society. There are very few genuine hunter-gatherers left, and I think they are somewhat more egalitarian than the Yanomami. They are also not very representative, because only the poorest, least inhabitable parts of the planet are left for them, and so they tend to be so extremely poor that they simply cannot afford to have large differences in wealth.

    Regarding differences between the sexes, of course there are no gender-equality utopias anywhere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Regarding differences between the sexes, of course there are no gender-equality utopias anywhere.

    What has been the prevalence of matriarchy?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Hail says: • Website
    @MEH 0910
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/scientific-american-ban-race-and-iq/

    Is it really 4.5 years since Jason Richwine was purged? (May 2013).

    What has he been doing? He was only 31 upon his purge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Richwine's CV indicates that he is a freelance analyst: http://www.jasonrichwine.com
    , @MEH 0910
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Richwine

    As of 2013, Richwine works as a writer for the National Review.[11][12] He has continued his controversial research, writing papers which have appeared in publications of the Center for Immigration Studies with titles such as "The Cost of Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households" and "Immigrant Literacy: Self-Assessment Vs. Reality".[12]
     
    http://www.nationalreview.com/author/jason-richwine

    https://cis.org/Richwine

    http://www.jasonrichwine.com/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Hail
    Is it really 4.5 years since Jason Richwine was purged? (May 2013).

    What has he been doing? He was only 31 upon his purge.

    Richwine’s CV indicates that he is a freelance analyst: http://www.jasonrichwine.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hail
    Why hasn't Trump given this man a job?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. MEH 0910 says:
    @Hail
    Is it really 4.5 years since Jason Richwine was purged? (May 2013).

    What has he been doing? He was only 31 upon his purge.

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

    As of 2013, Richwine works as a writer for the National Review.[11][12] He has continued his controversial research, writing papers which have appeared in publications of the Center for Immigration Studies with titles such as “The Cost of Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households” and “Immigrant Literacy: Self-Assessment Vs. Reality”.[12]

    http://www.nationalreview.com/author/jason-richwine

    https://cis.org/Richwine

    http://www.jasonrichwine.com/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    NR is bizarre. Derbyshire is ungood, but Richwine is good.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Dave Pinsen
    Right. It was egalitarian in the sense that there were no classes, inequality, etc. That came with agriculture, surplus of food, civilization.

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/943712191320117248

    Right. It was egalitarian in the sense that there were no classes, inequality, etc. That came with agriculture, surplus of food, civilization.

    You are implying that hunter-gatherer society was monogamous. Was that indeed the case?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    I don't know if it was monogamous, but it seems like it would have been hard for one man to monopolize multiple women without having a surplus of food.
    , @David
    Homo sapiens are primarily a pair bonding species with a little bit of tournament species mixed in. In tournament species, the top males father the overwhelming portion of offspring. In pair bonding ones, almost every male gets a chance. The relative body size of the human sexes verses baboons for example is much more equal, though not equal. In more complete pair bonding species, like gibbons, the sexes are almost the same size.

    In the case of humans, no matter how tough a man, he can be pierced with a spear, clocked with a club, or shot with an arrow. So big guys that try to hoard women too often get killed by littler guys, maybe first thing in the morning while the big guy is taking a leak.

    The thing about hunter gatherers is that they are expert trackers, making their communities a difficult environment for clandestine sexual affairs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @reiner Tor
    The Yanomami are not a hunting-gathering but a gardening society. There are very few genuine hunter-gatherers left, and I think they are somewhat more egalitarian than the Yanomami. They are also not very representative, because only the poorest, least inhabitable parts of the planet are left for them, and so they tend to be so extremely poor that they simply cannot afford to have large differences in wealth.

    Regarding differences between the sexes, of course there are no gender-equality utopias anywhere.

    Regarding differences between the sexes, of course there are no gender-equality utopias anywhere.

    What has been the prevalence of matriarchy?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Basically nonexistent.
    , @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    "What has been the prevalence of matriarchy?"

    According to my Sociology 201 textbook, nonexistent.

    According to movies (AKA documentaries), most civilizations are matriarchies.

    All movies are documentaries because the viewer's enjoyment relies on convincing himself that the characters and events are real or at least plausible; otherwise, it becomes merely an exercise in critique: how good are the writing and acting, how convincing are the sets, how good are the special FX?

    Fiction is dangerous because there is no such thing as fiction.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Hail says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    Richwine's CV indicates that he is a freelance analyst: http://www.jasonrichwine.com

    Why hasn’t Trump given this man a job?

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Anonymous
    How the Hell do these self proclaimed 'experts' *know* what were the 'societal attitudes' of people who died tens of thousands of years ago, who left behind absolutely zero in the way of written records?

    All I can say - based on 'mere common sense', that it seems to me 'exceedingly unlikely' in the least that *any* society of men in *any* historic time period - except the deranged and pussified present - would allow themselves to be so degraded as to allow women to boss them about.

    It it has happened in the present, why would you think it unlikely that it happened in the past?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Good question. Very good question.

    The present pussification of western men can only only be an aberration. For whatever reason, western society has reached a level of dysfunction and degeneration in which the most brazen obvious falsehood is accepted not only as a 'self-evident truth' but as the 'highest moral precept'!

    Put it this way, if historically, and people, ethny, nation, tribe etc worthy of the name 'society' somehow allowed itself to have the most egregious falsehood possible to be its 'guiding principle' then that society, inevitably, could not have lasted for any appreciable length of time.
    Either more intelligent rivals would have destroyed it, or it would have fallen from within.

    - And my suspicion is that this principle still holds true.
    , @reiner Tor
    Because societies were smaller and didn’t accumulate so much technological advantage over others, so they would’ve fallen much quicker. A hunting-gathering tribe wouldn’t have lasted for a year with feminism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @SimpleSong
    I mostly remembered it from the '90s when it was a reasonably respectable general interest mag that avoided Popular Mechanics style buffoonery (flying cars! Next year! We swear this time!). However I also remember running across some Scientific American issues from back in the early 70s (I believe) and being shocked at how highbrow it had been. It was just slightly below the level of a real peer reviewed journal. So the descent has been stretched over a good 40 years and now it seems it has landed just slightly above the level of People magazine. Actually at this point I much prefer PopMech since they seem to embrace their own campiness.

    Neither the term "Scientific", nor the term "American", have any real meaning in our modern society so I'm not surprised this has happened.

    Popular Mechanics style buffoonery (flying cars! Next year! We swear this time!)

    But didn’t you hear? We really are getting cars this year!! (or maybe next…)

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2015/03/16/finally-a-flying-car-could-go-on-sale-as-soon-as-2017/#29df77881255

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Luke Lea
    Certainly a sexual division of labor is a feature of all hunter/gatherer societies, if that is what you mean. There is also sexual dimorphism (in strength and size) among humans and lots of other differences. Sexism is nature's way and not just among people.

    My impression is that sexual dimorphism is much more noticeable in settled agricultural societies than in hunter gatherer societies. Which makes sense if you think about it, the division of labor in most agricultural societies requires men to be very strong – moving rocks, clearing fields, controlling livestock, even dragging plows; while women were often taking care of children, mending, etc. The hunting bit in most hunter – gatherer societies is more about fishing, killing small animals and trapping, none of which require men to be significantly stronger or faster than women.

    So Horgan is probably right that hunter gatherer societies were more egalitarian. But he is ignoring the fact that most of us are descended from settled agrarian people, not hunter gatherers, and 5000 years has been enough time to accentuate the biological differences between men and women. Particularly in European and Middle Eastern societies, maybe somewhat less in Asia and Africa.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Bill
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yeah right.

    Hunting mammoths was just sooo safe and easy.

    Look at the Lascaux daubings to see exactly what sort of game ancient Europeans went after.
    , @AnotherDad

    My impression is that sexual dimorphism is much more noticeable in settled agricultural societies than in hunter gatherer societies.
     
    This is pretty much completely backwards.

    In hunter-gather societies the women gather and have babies. The men hunt and *fight* with other tribes (and sometimes among themselves over leadership and the women). There is a high level of violence. Savoir those words--"hunt", "fight", "violence". These aren't soy boys. (I'm perplexed where people get these weird ideas about hunter-gatherers. Do they think it's like a camping trip?--And even camping trips quickly reveal sexual-dimorphism.)


    In contrast, in settled agricultural societies the dimorphism in personality tends to recede. Men handle the heavy work with the draft animals, while women do child care, housework and gardening. But the couple--and all their kids--are part of this joint family project "the farm".

    My grandparents--while sterotypically male and female--were quite a bit a like in many ways, edges ground and smoothed a bit to fit their roles in farm labor.

    As Steve's pointed out, the modern liberation of women (and men) from all this farm and household labor and general high prosperity and career choice isn't creating androgyny, rather guys are off being "guys" and the gals are becoming every more girly-girls.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @neutral
    It is clear that Scientific American is neither scientific or even very American. Here are some other names that need to be changed to reflect what they really are.

    - "National Review" to "Internationalist Review"
    - "The Guardian" to "The Attacker" (as in attacking all those that stand in the way of the deep state narratives).
    - "The Economist" to "The Globalist"
    - "Vox" (which is Latin for "voice") to the more precise "The Establishment Voice"
    - "BBC" to "GBC" (G standing for global as there is nothing British about the BBC)
    - "Washington Post" to "The CIA Post" (ok this one is not needed that much because most know what Washington implies)

    - “The Economist” to “The Globalist”

    Why? What’s the difference?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Opinionator
    Right. It was egalitarian in the sense that there were no classes, inequality, etc. That came with agriculture, surplus of food, civilization.

    You are implying that hunter-gatherer society was monogamous. Was that indeed the case?

    I don’t know if it was monogamous, but it seems like it would have been hard for one man to monopolize multiple women without having a surplus of food.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    A strong and "persuasive" man could have his women gathering food overtime for him, particularly if he was good at hunting.
    , @Anonymous
    Do you really think in those far off days that anyone gave a damn about 'human rights'?
    Do you really think that there was any higher authority than the toughest fist?
    , @Daniel Chieh
    There is a lot of truth in that, the lack of the ability to accumulate wealth certainly created a form of equality. Still, even at its "best", hunter-gatherers practiced things that basically no society could imagine in order to even survive: infanticide, abandonment of the elderly, and there's even evidence of cannibalism.

    And northern Native Americans, who were hunter-gatherers bands for all practical purposes, often had a system of hierarchy with chieftans having more women than others - still a genetic advantage.
    , @Wency
    Polygamy doesn't seem to be much of a feature among hunter-gatherers. Instead of "owning" multiple wives, hunter-gatherers living in abundance typically "rent" their women, living in "frat house" type arrangements among other men while the women raise a family of children sired by multiple fathers.

    Societies where making a living takes more effort typically have more monogamous and nuclear family arrangements.

    Hunter-gatherer societies often have ritualistic mechanisms for collectively conspiring and murdering "bullies", including the sort of men who would bogart all the women. This helps preserve the egalitarianism of their societies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. BB753 says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    I don't know if it was monogamous, but it seems like it would have been hard for one man to monopolize multiple women without having a surplus of food.

    A strong and “persuasive” man could have his women gathering food overtime for him, particularly if he was good at hunting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    The third oldest profession: pimp!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Olorin says:

    All of which points to why SciAm is now best called PoliSciAm.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Opinionator
    It it has happened in the present, why would you think it unlikely that it happened in the past?

    Good question. Very good question.

    The present pussification of western men can only only be an aberration. For whatever reason, western society has reached a level of dysfunction and degeneration in which the most brazen obvious falsehood is accepted not only as a ‘self-evident truth’ but as the ‘highest moral precept’!

    Put it this way, if historically, and people, ethny, nation, tribe etc worthy of the name ‘society’ somehow allowed itself to have the most egregious falsehood possible to be its ‘guiding principle’ then that society, inevitably, could not have lasted for any appreciable length of time.
    Either more intelligent rivals would have destroyed it, or it would have fallen from within.

    – And my suspicion is that this principle still holds true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    In fact, the nation of Sweden provides a real-time, in our lifetimes, spectator example of this.

    Needless to say, Sweden is 'proud' of fact that it is the most pussified and leading pussifying nation on earth. Sweden is or was proud of its living standards and society. Now one effect of its pussification was uncontrolled unlimited immigration of black and brown.
    One now wonders for how long will Sweden maintain high living standards?
    One watches with interest the rise of a black/brown majority Sweden. One also notes 'razzias' being carried out by virile black/brown youthful men against native Swedish nubile women.
    , @Anonymous
    I've got a feeling that if a 'sexual egalitarian' prehistoric society ever did exist - even for a fleeting historic moment - it would have failed due to the (non modern PC brainwashed) men of that society making common cause and siding with an invading conquering group - which did not practice 'sex equality' -against the reputed female 'equals' or 'overladies' of their own kin group.
    Such an outcome would be rational in terms of game theory.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    My impression is that sexual dimorphism is much more noticeable in settled agricultural societies than in hunter gatherer societies. Which makes sense if you think about it, the division of labor in most agricultural societies requires men to be very strong - moving rocks, clearing fields, controlling livestock, even dragging plows; while women were often taking care of children, mending, etc. The hunting bit in most hunter - gatherer societies is more about fishing, killing small animals and trapping, none of which require men to be significantly stronger or faster than women.

    So Horgan is probably right that hunter gatherer societies were more egalitarian. But he is ignoring the fact that most of us are descended from settled agrarian people, not hunter gatherers, and 5000 years has been enough time to accentuate the biological differences between men and women. Particularly in European and Middle Eastern societies, maybe somewhat less in Asia and Africa.

    Yeah right.

    Hunting mammoths was just sooo safe and easy.

    Look at the Lascaux daubings to see exactly what sort of game ancient Europeans went after.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "the Lascaux daubings"

    Not meaning to be nasty; but the paintings at Lascaux are masterpieces, not daubings. I've always wondered where the practice pieces are, there should be many more of them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    I don't know if it was monogamous, but it seems like it would have been hard for one man to monopolize multiple women without having a surplus of food.

    Do you really think in those far off days that anyone gave a damn about ‘human rights’?
    Do you really think that there was any higher authority than the toughest fist?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    If you cannot feed your women, you cannot have them. If there’s no surplus food, you won’t have soldiers, so how can you monopolize all those women, when there will be many men with no women at all? Sure those would get the idea to team up on the strong guy and kill him and get his many women. He sure cannot be stronger than three weaker guys together.

    In Europe the women had to be fed by their men, because in winter there are no edible plants available, it’s mostly just big game hunting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Hail says: • Website
    @neutral
    It is clear that Scientific American is neither scientific or even very American. Here are some other names that need to be changed to reflect what they really are.

    - "National Review" to "Internationalist Review"
    - "The Guardian" to "The Attacker" (as in attacking all those that stand in the way of the deep state narratives).
    - "The Economist" to "The Globalist"
    - "Vox" (which is Latin for "voice") to the more precise "The Establishment Voice"
    - "BBC" to "GBC" (G standing for global as there is nothing British about the BBC)
    - "Washington Post" to "The CIA Post" (ok this one is not needed that much because most know what Washington implies)

    - “The Economist” to “The Globalist”

    “The Dismal Globalist”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Good question. Very good question.

    The present pussification of western men can only only be an aberration. For whatever reason, western society has reached a level of dysfunction and degeneration in which the most brazen obvious falsehood is accepted not only as a 'self-evident truth' but as the 'highest moral precept'!

    Put it this way, if historically, and people, ethny, nation, tribe etc worthy of the name 'society' somehow allowed itself to have the most egregious falsehood possible to be its 'guiding principle' then that society, inevitably, could not have lasted for any appreciable length of time.
    Either more intelligent rivals would have destroyed it, or it would have fallen from within.

    - And my suspicion is that this principle still holds true.

    In fact, the nation of Sweden provides a real-time, in our lifetimes, spectator example of this.

    Needless to say, Sweden is ‘proud’ of fact that it is the most pussified and leading pussifying nation on earth. Sweden is or was proud of its living standards and society. Now one effect of its pussification was uncontrolled unlimited immigration of black and brown.
    One now wonders for how long will Sweden maintain high living standards?
    One watches with interest the rise of a black/brown majority Sweden. One also notes ‘razzias’ being carried out by virile black/brown youthful men against native Swedish nubile women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. helena says:
    @Luke Lea
    Certainly a sexual division of labor is a feature of all hunter/gatherer societies, if that is what you mean. There is also sexual dimorphism (in strength and size) among humans and lots of other differences. Sexism is nature's way and not just among people.

    Have you seen hbd chick’s twitter? There’s a tweet quoted from someone replying to someone making that very same claim. It goes like this~:

    “I’m afraid science doesn’t show that at all. Humans aren’t sexually dimporphic, and sexologists, biologists, anthropologists, neuroscientists and geneticists have recognised a diversity of gender and sex categories for decades. Binary sex/gender is a recent Western invention.”

    Are you crying or laughing?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Anonymous
    Science has morphed from an intellectual pursuit with strict standards into just another social-political cudgel by which we may harass and oppress white males. Any science not appropriate for this purpose is ipso facto not science. Hope this clarifies things for you all.

    Scientific America has been leftist for some time.

    That Horgan guy has no training in any STEM subject, just journalism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Moses

    no training in any STEM subject, just journalism.
     
    Oxymoron
    , @stillCARealist
    My parents read it in the 70's and called it Unscientific UnAmerican. They cancelled the subscription sometime around 1980.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Mr. Anon says:
    @anon
    Except for that whole hunter-gatherer part of the hunter-gatherer societies, but otherwise …

    See, this is a perfect joke. It's great. But the I F*cking Love Science types won't even get that it's supposed to be a joke.

    What are people like us supposed to do?

    It's maddening.

    But the I F*cking Love Science types won’t even get that it’s supposed to be a joke.

    They F*cking Love Science. They don’t F*cking Understand Science.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    Zing!
    , @Reg Cæsar

    They F*cking Love Science. They don’t F*cking Understand Science.
     
    Yeah, they do. But they all have an asterisk.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. bomag says:
    @Anonymous
    That white person had the temerity to imply that his country is being overrun. And there's much more, but I won't bore you except to remind you that this is supposed to be a car magazine, and BTW: "We’ve Temporarily Removed Comments"

    this is supposed to be a car magazine

    I don’t know what was worse in that link: the turgid prose, or the sappy sentimentality.

    I was waiting for some discussion of the vehicle they were driving. I guess they didn’t want to distract from the politicizing. They did mention that it had leather seats.

    They wax on about the scenic beauty, not considering that the policies they implicitly endorse will soon have those places covered with trash, houses, and strip malls.

    We’re happy to spend billions building a better mop to sop up the tide of individuals and narcotics spilling over our border, but we’re reluctant to help Mexico pull itself out of the economic gutter that funnels people and drugs to our door. The U.S. needs a strong and prosperous Mexico, one humming with jobs and opportunity.

    Invade the world; invite the world; invest in the world (i.e. give them money for nothing.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    The U.S. needs a strong and prosperous Mexico, one humming with jobs and opportunity.
     
    The journalist appears to be unaware that we have indeed sent a fair number of American jobs to Mexico over the past few decades.

    Oh, oh, see what I did, I used the words "journalist" and "unaware" in the same sentence. I made a funny.

    Or do I mean 'redundancy'..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Realist says:

    Scientific American use to be a decent journal for the, science interested, masses, but has transformed into a propaganda rag. This happened many years back.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. @Anonymous
    Do you really think in those far off days that anyone gave a damn about 'human rights'?
    Do you really think that there was any higher authority than the toughest fist?

    If you cannot feed your women, you cannot have them. If there’s no surplus food, you won’t have soldiers, so how can you monopolize all those women, when there will be many men with no women at all? Sure those would get the idea to team up on the strong guy and kill him and get his many women. He sure cannot be stronger than three weaker guys together.

    In Europe the women had to be fed by their men, because in winter there are no edible plants available, it’s mostly just big game hunting.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dave Pinsen
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    To this day, in modern India, many a half-starved Dalit has no trouble in finding, keeping and dominating a wife,in the 'old fashioned way'.
    Not to mention him siring hordes of children which he is able to 'feed' adequately.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Opinionator
    It it has happened in the present, why would you think it unlikely that it happened in the past?

    Because societies were smaller and didn’t accumulate so much technological advantage over others, so they would’ve fallen much quicker. A hunting-gathering tribe wouldn’t have lasted for a year with feminism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Opinionator
    Regarding differences between the sexes, of course there are no gender-equality utopias anywhere.

    What has been the prevalence of matriarchy?

    Basically nonexistent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Amazing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Simon says:

    I lost my faith in Scientific American when the magazine assigned Leon Kamin, a known enemy of Richard Herrnstein, to review “The Bell Curve.” Clearly the magazine wanted to make sure the book received a hostile review — and that’s exactly what it got.

    From Wiki: “Kamin has long opposed the idea that significant personal traits are largely heritable…. Kamin is known in some circles for his speculation that the heritability of IQ could be ‘zero.’”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. Horgan has one point, and one only – hunter-gatherers were much more economically and politically equal – when you have to carry all your possessions you can’t take 3,000 acres of land, a castle and a Maserati round with you. Farming was the breakthrough that also enabled kings, noblemen and pharoahs. You can’t have professional soldiers, jewellers, scribes – eveyone has to hunt or gather.

    But I’m sure sex roles were highly differentiated among hunter gatherers, and violence didn’t hurt a man’s mating prospects, just as in such societies today.

    Woman after woman, when asked to name her husband, named several sequential husbands who had died violent deaths. A typical answer went like this: “My first husband was killed by Elopi raiders. My second husband was killed by a man who wanted me, and who became my third husband. That husband was killed by the brother of my second husband, seeking to avenge his murder.”

    Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel

    (The rot is also in New Scientist, Lancet, BMJ etc. National Geographic under SJW editor Susan Goldberg features “Putin’s Russia” and “Why We Lie” as cover stories, neither anything to do with geography)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yes, the 'Marsch durch die Institutionen' most definitely includes the media, all of it, involving also my favorite hobbyist websites where self-appointed busybodies are policing every thread making sure no one mentions Christmas, or anything positive about American or European history, not to mention light-complected people.

    Sorry to be negative, but anyone who is hopeful about our plight (or the future of Western Civilization) is, in my opinion, delusional.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Tulip says:

    Sorry Steve, the revealed truth of the Bible is that God created humans as blank slates, and that all categories of difference between people are socially constructed.

    When the claims of science contradict the revealed truth of religion, science must be rejected in favor of the Word according to Saul Alinsky. Doing anything else means you are ignorant fundamentalist, and a deplorable reactionary misogynist.

    Read More
    • LOL: Seamus Padraig
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. eah says:

    Just a coincidence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @bomag

    this is supposed to be a car magazine
     
    I don't know what was worse in that link: the turgid prose, or the sappy sentimentality.

    I was waiting for some discussion of the vehicle they were driving. I guess they didn't want to distract from the politicizing. They did mention that it had leather seats.

    They wax on about the scenic beauty, not considering that the policies they implicitly endorse will soon have those places covered with trash, houses, and strip malls.


    We’re happy to spend billions building a better mop to sop up the tide of individuals and narcotics spilling over our border, but we’re reluctant to help Mexico pull itself out of the economic gutter that funnels people and drugs to our door. The U.S. needs a strong and prosperous Mexico, one humming with jobs and opportunity.
     
    Invade the world; invite the world; invest in the world (i.e. give them money for nothing.)

    The U.S. needs a strong and prosperous Mexico, one humming with jobs and opportunity.

    The journalist appears to be unaware that we have indeed sent a fair number of American jobs to Mexico over the past few decades.

    Oh, oh, see what I did, I used the words “journalist” and “unaware” in the same sentence. I made a funny.

    Or do I mean ‘redundancy’..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. TheJester says:
    @Anonymous
    Science has morphed from an intellectual pursuit with strict standards into just another social-political cudgel by which we may harass and oppress white males. Any science not appropriate for this purpose is ipso facto not science. Hope this clarifies things for you all.

    I agree …

    I recently browsed through a copy of Scientific American at a doctor’s office. I was shocked at the obvious political correctness, bias, and low-brow content for a magazine that used to summarize the bleeding-edge of science for math-disabled people like me.

    There was the politically correct racial and the gender-based mix of authors that ensured that Whites, Blacks, Asians, and women all had balanced representation. There were a surprising number of “soft” articles from female authors on touchy-feely subjects that had little to do with “science”.

    The long march of Cultural Marxism through our institutions continues …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @YetAnotherAnon
    Horgan has one point, and one only - hunter-gatherers were much more economically and politically equal - when you have to carry all your possessions you can't take 3,000 acres of land, a castle and a Maserati round with you. Farming was the breakthrough that also enabled kings, noblemen and pharoahs. You can't have professional soldiers, jewellers, scribes - eveyone has to hunt or gather.

    But I'm sure sex roles were highly differentiated among hunter gatherers, and violence didn't hurt a man's mating prospects, just as in such societies today.


    Woman after woman, when asked to name her husband, named several sequential husbands who had died violent deaths. A typical answer went like this: "My first husband was killed by Elopi raiders. My second husband was killed by a man who wanted me, and who became my third husband. That husband was killed by the brother of my second husband, seeking to avenge his murder."
     
    Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel


    (The rot is also in New Scientist, Lancet, BMJ etc. National Geographic under SJW editor Susan Goldberg features "Putin's Russia" and "Why We Lie" as cover stories, neither anything to do with geography)

    Yes, the ‘Marsch durch die Institutionen’ most definitely includes the media, all of it, involving also my favorite hobbyist websites where self-appointed busybodies are policing every thread making sure no one mentions Christmas, or anything positive about American or European history, not to mention light-complected people.

    Sorry to be negative, but anyone who is hopeful about our plight (or the future of Western Civilization) is, in my opinion, delusional.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Bret Weinstein (whining): "Okay please can I get laid now? Please? Okay will you at least let me j/o in front of you? Just a little?"
    , @Daniel Chieh

    The evolutionary division of labor between the sexes is real, unfair and largely obsolete.
     
    Can't wait for Brave New World. Electrical stimulation of the remains of the prostate shall be the only form of physical pleasure, subject #8559241!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor
    If you cannot feed your women, you cannot have them. If there’s no surplus food, you won’t have soldiers, so how can you monopolize all those women, when there will be many men with no women at all? Sure those would get the idea to team up on the strong guy and kill him and get his many women. He sure cannot be stronger than three weaker guys together.

    In Europe the women had to be fed by their men, because in winter there are no edible plants available, it’s mostly just big game hunting.

    To this day, in modern India, many a half-starved Dalit has no trouble in finding, keeping and dominating a wife,in the ‘old fashioned way’.
    Not to mention him siring hordes of children which he is able to ‘feed’ adequately.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    In tropical climates it’s different. There’s no winter, when the only available food source is big game hunting for hunters-gatherers. Oh and Dalits are not hunting-gathering, they can have other sources of food. No need for Dalit women to go hunting in winter.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    They're still able to feed them. If you look at records of Native Americans, the truly hunting-gathering bands as opposed to ones such as the Iroquois who practiced agriculture, risks of starvation were real and constant. For the most archetypical hunter-gathering band, there's no concept of wealth - there's not even a way to keep food from spoiling.

    In such societies, polygamy is difficult at best. Infanticide and abandonment is common. The existence of agriculture and the concept of wealth is what promoted chiefdoms, seen as the first evolution from pure tribal societies, where the "big man and his elite bodyguards" would form the beginnings of an elite that could monopolize women. Even the Yanomami produce flour which can be accumulated.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Good question. Very good question.

    The present pussification of western men can only only be an aberration. For whatever reason, western society has reached a level of dysfunction and degeneration in which the most brazen obvious falsehood is accepted not only as a 'self-evident truth' but as the 'highest moral precept'!

    Put it this way, if historically, and people, ethny, nation, tribe etc worthy of the name 'society' somehow allowed itself to have the most egregious falsehood possible to be its 'guiding principle' then that society, inevitably, could not have lasted for any appreciable length of time.
    Either more intelligent rivals would have destroyed it, or it would have fallen from within.

    - And my suspicion is that this principle still holds true.

    I’ve got a feeling that if a ‘sexual egalitarian’ prehistoric society ever did exist – even for a fleeting historic moment – it would have failed due to the (non modern PC brainwashed) men of that society making common cause and siding with an invading conquering group – which did not practice ‘sex equality’ -against the reputed female ‘equals’ or ‘overladies’ of their own kin group.
    Such an outcome would be rational in terms of game theory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/943501004175060992

    Bret Weinstein (whining): “Okay please can I get laid now? Please? Okay will you at least let me j/o in front of you? Just a little?”

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

    it sure ain’t American.
     
    Wiki sez:

    Scientific American was founded by inventor and publisher Rufus M. Porter in 1845[1792–1884; "Rufus Porter descended from an old colonial New England family"] as a four-page weekly newspaper. Throughout its early years, much emphasis was placed on reports of what was going on at the U.S. Patent Office. It also reported on a broad range of inventions including perpetual motion machines
     
    But then:

    In 1986, it was sold to the Holtzbrinck group of Germany, which has owned it since. ["Holtzbrinck Publishing Group is a privately-held Stuttgart-based company which owns publishing companies worldwide. The company has published a wide variety of books, from The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie to classics by Agatha Christie, Jean-Paul Sartre, Ernest Hemingway and John Updike."]
     
    So Scientific American was saved by Germans. Finally, for once, they get to be the Good Guys.

    But...uh oh...Guess what else is true: It seems that the founder George von Holtzbrinck (1909-1983) was a member of the NS German Students League at age 22 in 1931. :(

    Hate to belabor it but ScAm was only acquired by the Nazi company after the latter merged with Springer (not Jerry), best known for its overpriced textbook supplementals and phony pharmaceutical research peer review.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @BB753
    A strong and "persuasive" man could have his women gathering food overtime for him, particularly if he was good at hunting.

    The third oldest profession: pimp!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. pyrrhus says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    This is a time, part of me thinks, for men to listen to women rather than pontificating about sexism
     
    Ha! Not when you can score points and push your idiotic agenda, right Horgan? What sphincter relaxation produced this raft? Anyone want to take bets on when John Horgan gets Me Tooed?

    Indeed. This kind of PC trash is why I canceled my subscription to SA ten years ago…

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

    I didn’t fully realize what a lightweight Horgan was. He genuinely doesn’t seem to understand anything.
     
    You know this is pretty much the ideal c.v. for a professional journalist...
    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Thanks--that was good fun. I especially enjoyed the profiles of the great British broadsheets. Though I noticed my old favorite from my more liberal days, the Independent, was missing.

    Meanwhile, it's always gratifying to encounter anyone who believes--as I do--that many journalists simply make their stories up from whole cloth, even when they can be verified.

    Asked why he copied other artists' work (meaning commercial artists) Andy Warhol replied "it's easier that way."

    , @candid_observer
    If I had one wish God would fulfill, it would be that command of the English language would correlate precisely with genuine knowledge of the world.

    Everything else would work out just fine.
    , @J.Ross
    J-school writers are the clearest answer to the faith that universities can design a course for any occupation. When confronted with a new writer I look into what else he's done. Heather MacDonald might be the best introductory-conservative writer, she's a better journalist than a lot of "real" journalists, and she's a lawyer by training. There used to be a sense (it seems to me) that the training to be a great writer was heavily phronetic, with Hemingway and Cummings driving military ambulances, or Jack London working punishing jobs. Even Lovecraft had a good grasp of hard sciences. So you go out into the world to prove yourself in some other field, and your experiences buy you the right to be a writer, and give you perspectives you will never stumble across in a post-grad library.
    If you look at journalism or "creative writing" or academic publications and events concerned with writing, you're looking more often than not at dutiful tuition-payers who "workshop" and "self-examine" when they should've been skinning their knees.
    There is a Native American myth that as you arrive in the afterlife you are greeted by a wrinkled norn who will eat your scars. If you have no scars, she will eat your eyes. I would feel better about j-schools if they couldn't go past the master's level and had that myth inscribed over their doors.
    , @Percy Gryce

    a dead child, like a broken doll, spreadeagled in the deserted roadway below his window — you know.
     
    Waugh was a prophet or simply wise, since that gag still works--from Kuwait to Syria to Merkel's Mistake.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. There were men with PhDs in biology back in the Third Reich publishing footnoted white-papers comparing Jewish and Aryan crania. And meanwhile, in the early Soviet Union you had Lysenkoism. Whenever they want to establish a totalitarian society, science is the first institution they must colonize precisely because for modern man, science is regarded as the font of all truth. It serves much the same role for modern man that religion served for ancient and medieval man.

    I can already see the outlines of where we’re headed, and it’s scary, folks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  80. Luke Lea says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Right. It was egalitarian in the sense that there were no classes, inequality, etc. That came with agriculture, surplus of food, civilization.

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/943712191320117248

    “One more thing: KSR on the beginning of economic inequality. pic.twitter.com/9JOjDdGEHg”

    You might like The Adam and Eve Story in its Mesopotamian Context: https://goo.gl/uikvFb

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Thanks, will check it out.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Just read it, Luke. Very interesting. Did you hear back?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. a reader says:
    @candid_observer
    Yeah, weren't the Yanomami, studied by Napoleon Chagnon, perfect examples of egalitarian hunter gatherers?

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

    Yeah, ok, there was all this homicide, and the men did all that. And, yeah, the women loved to marry the men with the most killings.

    But otherwise, egalitarian. You could hardly tell the sexes apart.

    Thanks.

    From the article you link to, some examples of paradisiac egalitarianism:

    The women are responsible for many domestic duties and chores, excluding hunting and killing game for food. Although the women do not hunt, they do work in the gardens and gather fruits, tubers, nuts and other wild foodstuffs.

    Women are expected to carry 70 to 80 pounds (32 to 36 kg) of crops on their backs during harvesting, using bark straps and woven baskets.

    In the mornings, while the men are off hunting, the women and young children go off in search of termite nests and other grubs.The women also pursue frogs, terrestrial crabs, or caterpillars, or even look for vines that can be woven into baskets. While some women gather these small sources of food, other women go off and fish for several hours during the day.[21] The women also prepare cassava, shredding the roots and expressing the toxic juice, then roasting the flour to make flat cakes, which they cook over a small pile of coals

    Yanomami women are expected to take responsibility for the children, who are expected to help their mothers with domestic chores from a very young age, and mothers rely very much on help from their daughters. Boys typically become the responsibility of the male members of the community after about age 8.

    The start of menstruation symbolizes the beginning of womanhood. Girls typically start menstruation around the age of 12-15.[24][25] Girls are often betrothed before menarche and the marriage may only be consummated once the girl starts menstruating, though the taboo is often violated and many girls become sexually active before then.

    Up until the time of menstruation, girls are treated as children, and are only responsible for assisting their mothers in household work. When they approach the age of menstruation, they are sought out by males as potential wives.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Moses says:
    @Frau Katze
    Scientific America has been leftist for some time.

    That Horgan guy has no training in any STEM subject, just journalism.

    no training in any STEM subject, just journalism.

    Oxymoron

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Luke Lea says:

    On the relative egalitarianism of hunter/gatherer societies compared to baboon and gorilla groups and civilized agricultural state societies see Hierarchy in the Forest: https://goo.gl/jgAoY1

    The basic argument is that hominids have evolved to love dominating and to hate being dominated. This led to “reverse dominance hierarchies” in hunter/gatherer societies in which would-be “big men” who went too far in lording it over the other members of the band would be ganged-up on by all the other males and taken down a notch or two (beaten up or driven out). Thus we are talking about male/male relationships not male/female, though even the latter were more equal than in patriarchal agricultural states, where class and sexual domination went hand in hand; it was the strong over the weak without apology.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. @SimpleSong
    I mostly remembered it from the '90s when it was a reasonably respectable general interest mag that avoided Popular Mechanics style buffoonery (flying cars! Next year! We swear this time!). However I also remember running across some Scientific American issues from back in the early 70s (I believe) and being shocked at how highbrow it had been. It was just slightly below the level of a real peer reviewed journal. So the descent has been stretched over a good 40 years and now it seems it has landed just slightly above the level of People magazine. Actually at this point I much prefer PopMech since they seem to embrace their own campiness.

    Neither the term "Scientific", nor the term "American", have any real meaning in our modern society so I'm not surprised this has happened.

    Scientific American was still a pretty serious magazine even in late 80′s-early 90′s, but within a couple of years IIRC it had gone over to the pop-science format with journalists writing everything. Prior to that it had real top scientists publish articles about their actual research in it’s pages, that would be inconceivable today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    They had an editor take over early 90s who decided that he had to fight people in Kansas who didn't accept evolution. He turned it from a magazine of science into a political journal. I stopped subscribing then.
    , @Anonymous IV
    Yep, I'm old enough to remember when Scientific American was a very stark, imposing magazine with long articles. The cover design alone gave off an air of seriousness, and you had to put on your thinking cap to make it through the feature articles. Somewhere along the way it rebranded itself as a glossy, casual magazine with garish, color-rich cover art and short, breezy articles.
    , @Old Jew
    You are a kindred spirit. I owned an almost full collection of SciAm since 1973 (when I got into the USA).
    Got old. We had to downsize from single home to apartment.

    I wanted to donate the collection. Neither the library nor the local college wanted it. The local collage had some 4 issues, from way back, missing.

    I provided them. All the rest to recycling.

    I can confirm your observation. The scientific tenor and the rigor went down.

    In the last few years I continued alternatively with electronic subscriptions or paper ones. But do not save them. There were a few articles written by actual scientists. most are by "science journalists". And the scientists are not of the hard sciences, and not stars of magnitude 1. (They may still become famous)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Moses says:

    The Onion reports “Study Finds Sexism Rampant in Nature.” An oldie but a goodie. Brilliant satire.

    https://www.theonion.com/study-finds-sexism-rampant-in-nature-1819566369

    Read More
    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    First Onion piece I ever read, absolutely hilarious. Today a lot of people would assume it was factual.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @John Derbyshire

    Thanks–that was good fun. I especially enjoyed the profiles of the great British broadsheets. Though I noticed my old favorite from my more liberal days, the Independent, was missing.

    Meanwhile, it’s always gratifying to encounter anyone who believes–as I do–that many journalists simply make their stories up from whole cloth, even when they can be verified.

    Asked why he copied other artists’ work (meaning commercial artists) Andy Warhol replied “it’s easier that way.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. David says:
    @Opinionator
    Right. It was egalitarian in the sense that there were no classes, inequality, etc. That came with agriculture, surplus of food, civilization.

    You are implying that hunter-gatherer society was monogamous. Was that indeed the case?

    Homo sapiens are primarily a pair bonding species with a little bit of tournament species mixed in. In tournament species, the top males father the overwhelming portion of offspring. In pair bonding ones, almost every male gets a chance. The relative body size of the human sexes verses baboons for example is much more equal, though not equal. In more complete pair bonding species, like gibbons, the sexes are almost the same size.

    In the case of humans, no matter how tough a man, he can be pierced with a spear, clocked with a club, or shot with an arrow. So big guys that try to hoard women too often get killed by littler guys, maybe first thing in the morning while the big guy is taking a leak.

    The thing about hunter gatherers is that they are expert trackers, making their communities a difficult environment for clandestine sexual affairs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Unladen Swallow
    Scientific American was still a pretty serious magazine even in late 80's-early 90's, but within a couple of years IIRC it had gone over to the pop-science format with journalists writing everything. Prior to that it had real top scientists publish articles about their actual research in it's pages, that would be inconceivable today.

    They had an editor take over early 90s who decided that he had to fight people in Kansas who didn’t accept evolution. He turned it from a magazine of science into a political journal. I stopped subscribing then.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonguy

    They had an editor take over early 90s who decided that he had to fight people in Kansas who didn’t accept evolution. He turned it from a magazine of science into a political journal. I stopped subscribing then.
     
    Isn't it amazing how many current trends first began manifesting themselves in the early 90s?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Luke Lea
    Certainly a sexual division of labor is a feature of all hunter/gatherer societies, if that is what you mean. There is also sexual dimorphism (in strength and size) among humans and lots of other differences. Sexism is nature's way and not just among people.

    This is still the canonical satire on feminism applied in biology:

    https://www.theonion.com/study-finds-sexism-rampant-in-nature-1819566369

    Man, that’s funny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    "To mate, the male Galapagos tortoise simply immobilizes the female with his weight, which, as far as I'm concerned, qualifies as non-consensual sex..."
     
    They don't really live for 200 years, it just feels like it.

    Bedbugs mate by what is essentially aggravated rape. Mature females can withstand it. Immature females cannot, not to mention males of any age. Crafty exterminators have learned to mess with their pheromones so the horndogs kill off the rest.

    I was going to pitch this script to the Weinsteins, but thought it better not to give them any more ideas.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Dave Pinsen
    Right. It was egalitarian in the sense that there were no classes, inequality, etc. That came with agriculture, surplus of food, civilization.

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/943712191320117248

    How did the farmers go for months without others overrunning their fields? The soldiers MUST have preceded the farmers. See Jane Jacobs’ The Economy of Cities, where she explains (confirmed by recent archeological evidence) that agriculture MUST have developed in cities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    In primitive cultures, the distinction between hunter and fighter are slim to none. The existence of a full-time warrior class did indeed require the accumulation of wealth which was only possible with agriculture.

    Slash and burn horticulture is an example of simple agriculture practiced by tribes, who had advanced beyond simply hunting and gathering, but still are largely nomadic.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    This sort of depends on how we're defining soldiers, I guess, as Daniel Chieh suggests in his reply. If you mean men who occasionally raided other groups and defended against raiders, then sure. But if you mean full time warriors, then no: you need a surplus of food for that, which came with agriculture.

    Before there was agriculture and a surplus of food, being a full time anything other than hunter or gather was pretty rare. Maybe there were a handful of master axe makers or something like that.
    , @another fred

    How did the farmers go for months without others overrunning their fields? The soldiers MUST have preceded the farmers. See Jane Jacobs’ The Economy of Cities, where she explains (confirmed by recent archeological evidence) that agriculture MUST have developed in cities.
     
    Your point applies to plow agriculture, particularly of grains, or to wet rice (paddy) agriculture, but not to the simpler swidden agriculture.

    Cities and plow agriculture developed contemporaneously, as you say, neither being viable without the other.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Trelane
    I know, that's what I'm talking about. Even when a German does the right thing it always turns out he was a member of the Bund or relocated to Brazil to work in a Volkswagen plant. What's wrong with these Germanic types anyway? They certainly ruined Scientific American. Do you remember what that magazine did to Bjorn Lomborg in the late 1990s? It was like Ron Unz's American Pravda, something between a dystopian nightmare and a Bolshevik rewrite of rationality. It was sick. I've never bought a copy of Sciam since.

    I find IEEE spectrum gives me some of the broader scientific view withou the PC that SciAm used to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Spectrum regularly wins prizes for science writing despite its closed circulation. I'm semi retired so I am now down to the UK's IET Engineering & Technology. Not bad but Spectrum was much better
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian

    Not by division of labor. Not even chimpanzee females participate in hunting(with a few exceptions), which highly suggests its a biologically influenced role.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  93. @SimpleSong
    I mostly remembered it from the '90s when it was a reasonably respectable general interest mag that avoided Popular Mechanics style buffoonery (flying cars! Next year! We swear this time!). However I also remember running across some Scientific American issues from back in the early 70s (I believe) and being shocked at how highbrow it had been. It was just slightly below the level of a real peer reviewed journal. So the descent has been stretched over a good 40 years and now it seems it has landed just slightly above the level of People magazine. Actually at this point I much prefer PopMech since they seem to embrace their own campiness.

    Neither the term "Scientific", nor the term "American", have any real meaning in our modern society so I'm not surprised this has happened.

    Why the shade thrown on Popular Mechanics? Flying cars — are you thinking about Popular Science?

    Since we are talking about sexual dimorphism, what counts for “women’s magazines” are those featured at the supermarket checkout counter for impulse purchase. Besides the “tabloids” lead by National Enquirer, what do you see there? Cosmopolitan, no? With its cover showing a half-naked female model each issue? And its completely sex-obsessed article headlines?

    So then what is a men’s magazine? Playbox? Esquire? A true men’s magazine is Popular Mechanics, which I had seen once at the supermarket checkout when its cover was “We fly the B-2 Stealth Bomber.” This is something men want to know, especially since so few of them were ever made and only a figurative handful of men, yes men, have ever taken the controls. And if you are wondering as most men do, the B-2 is “fly-by-wire”, piloted through a “joy stick”, and its aerodynamic handling is heavily mediated by a computer algorithm, so it flies much like the Anglo-French Airbus family of passenger jets, which pretty much settles the question.

    Now at the risk of offending earnest 9-11 Truthers among iSteve’s loyal readers, Popular Mechanics has been a serious publication in addressing the claim “But steel doesn’t burn” that had been a talking point on, you guessed it, The View, although I don’t recall whether it was Joy Behar or Whoopi Goldberg offering that bit of material science and metallurgical insight.

    Popular Mechanics devoted page space to explaining that if steel doesn’t catch fire, it could certainly soften and hence weaken if exposed to a raging jet-fuel-fed fire. There was a major public university with a male, Mechanical Engineering professor as its Provost (whose engineering specialization, by the way, was in combustion), who was in the eye-of-the-storm and offering a lame defense regarding some non-tenured instructor who was teaching Trutherism in the classroom. There was a suggestion of buying the Provost a subscription.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SimpleSong
    Sorry; you're actually right, I shouldn't disrespect PopMech. I actually really enjoy them, and nowadays they're probably one of the more reputable popular science/engineering magazines. They've had a strange trajectory where they went from being founded as a highly practical, down to earth mechanics journal, to some real zaniness and techno-utopianism, and now back to a relatively reputable general interest engineering mag with some how-to thrown in. I think realized where their reputation was going and corrected course around the 1990s. Back then I used to say that Technology Review was a highbrow Popular Mechanics but I actually think that the PMs quality is probably better than Technology Review or Wired at this point. Those guys went down the SJW rabbit hole a few years back.
    , @Joe Stalin
    I remember when Popular Mechanics published a letter from a gun controller asking that they stop publishing articles on firearms. They responded: "No."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Dave Pinsen
    I don't know if it was monogamous, but it seems like it would have been hard for one man to monopolize multiple women without having a surplus of food.

    There is a lot of truth in that, the lack of the ability to accumulate wealth certainly created a form of equality. Still, even at its “best”, hunter-gatherers practiced things that basically no society could imagine in order to even survive: infanticide, abandonment of the elderly, and there’s even evidence of cannibalism.

    And northern Native Americans, who were hunter-gatherers bands for all practical purposes, often had a system of hierarchy with chieftans having more women than others – still a genetic advantage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    The FT profiled a group of modern hunter gatherers in Africa last year. They're pretty egalitarian for just that reason: not much to hoard.

    The men turned to gambling for the afternoon. Gambling is not just social: it is a highly efficient way of sharing scarce resource across the community. They play a game of pure chance, so no one can win for long. By staking their valuables, the valuables get shared out eventually. Unlike trade and barter, which require skill, there is no chance of one person becoming richer than the others.
     
    https://twitter.com/ftproperty/status/731076545125715968
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Anatoly Karlin
    https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/943501004175060992

    The evolutionary division of labor between the sexes is real, unfair and largely obsolete.

    Can’t wait for Brave New World. Electrical stimulation of the remains of the prostate shall be the only form of physical pleasure, subject #8559241!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Art Deco says:
    @Hail

    Horgan graduated from the Columbia University School of Journalism in 1983.
     
    He was at Columbia with Barack Obama.

    He was at Columbia with Barack Obama.

    Not sure what the total enrollment was in 1982. As we speak, I think it’s over 30,000. BO would have been enrolled in the undergraduate division of the arts and science faculty, which is a small fraction of the whole. The J-School degree is a one-year program, if I’m not mistaken.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Frau Katze
    Scientific America has been leftist for some time.

    That Horgan guy has no training in any STEM subject, just journalism.

    My parents read it in the 70′s and called it Unscientific UnAmerican. They cancelled the subscription sometime around 1980.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @candid_observer
    I saw Robert Wright debating Horgan on bloggingheads.tv.

    Until I saw him in action there, I didn't fully realize what a lightweight Horgan was. He genuinely doesn't seem to understand anything. This poses no impediment to his pontificating.

    Horgan’s M.O. for writing a book is to line up 10-12 experts, then go interview each one. Each interview becomes a chapter in the book. Tack on an intro and a summing-it-up concluding chapter, and you’ve got a book! At no point does Horgan himself do any heavy lifting intellectually. (Actually this “collection of interviews” approach to book writing is pretty common among journalists these days–not unique to Horgan.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    BBC Radio has a program called The Inquiry that uses this format. You'll never believe this, but by some miracle none of the experts they select ever disagree with each other! What luck!
    They are preceded by a BBC documentary video format in which The Experts are presented one at a time, answering unaired questions, to create the impression of choral harmony and Settled Science.
    The worst example of this was a program in which they presented Lying Jack Kerkove, who thinks the Constitution was written in the Carter administration by lobbyists in order to sell more Rugers, without explaining to Britons that in this country we do not consider him to be an expert on anything.
    To their credit they are one of the few establishmentarian mouthpieces who have acknowledged the existence of the reproduction and replication crisis. That episode was as good as it could have been. It would have been too much for them to make the connection between the current crisis of official authority and "science" consisting of big pharma ads and thinking real deep about what it means to be black.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Unladen Swallow
    Scientific American was still a pretty serious magazine even in late 80's-early 90's, but within a couple of years IIRC it had gone over to the pop-science format with journalists writing everything. Prior to that it had real top scientists publish articles about their actual research in it's pages, that would be inconceivable today.

    Yep, I’m old enough to remember when Scientific American was a very stark, imposing magazine with long articles. The cover design alone gave off an air of seriousness, and you had to put on your thinking cap to make it through the feature articles. Somewhere along the way it rebranded itself as a glossy, casual magazine with garish, color-rich cover art and short, breezy articles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Hunsdon says:
    @Mr. Anon

    But the I F*cking Love Science types won’t even get that it’s supposed to be a joke.
     
    They F*cking Love Science. They don't F*cking Understand Science.

    Zing!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @John Derbyshire

    If I had one wish God would fulfill, it would be that command of the English language would correlate precisely with genuine knowledge of the world.

    Everything else would work out just fine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Bill says:
    @MEH 0910
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Richwine

    As of 2013, Richwine works as a writer for the National Review.[11][12] He has continued his controversial research, writing papers which have appeared in publications of the Center for Immigration Studies with titles such as "The Cost of Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households" and "Immigrant Literacy: Self-Assessment Vs. Reality".[12]
     
    http://www.nationalreview.com/author/jason-richwine

    https://cis.org/Richwine

    http://www.jasonrichwine.com/

    NR is bizarre. Derbyshire is ungood, but Richwine is good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hail
    Maybe NR were taken over by an anti-British cabal around the time as Derbyshire's "Beware of Blacks" essay.

    What kind of name is Richwine? All wiki picks up is a bass-guitarist and back-up vocalist named Gary Richwine for a 1977 album called Windy City Breakdown. It is not implausible that Gary Richwine is Jason's father (or uncle), given that Jason was born in 1982. Presumably the 1977 bass guitarist was young, perhaps approaching fatherhood-age at the time of that album (the main singer was b. 1950).

    It seems likely that "Richwine" comes "Reichwein," one bearer of whom was sentenced to death in late 1944 Germany for treason (Adolf Reichwein). So at least Jason can argue that he has family-name anti-Nazi street cred. (There were also some Norwegian Reichweins and everyone likes Norwegians.)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Peter Akuleyev
    My impression is that sexual dimorphism is much more noticeable in settled agricultural societies than in hunter gatherer societies. Which makes sense if you think about it, the division of labor in most agricultural societies requires men to be very strong - moving rocks, clearing fields, controlling livestock, even dragging plows; while women were often taking care of children, mending, etc. The hunting bit in most hunter - gatherer societies is more about fishing, killing small animals and trapping, none of which require men to be significantly stronger or faster than women.

    So Horgan is probably right that hunter gatherer societies were more egalitarian. But he is ignoring the fact that most of us are descended from settled agrarian people, not hunter gatherers, and 5000 years has been enough time to accentuate the biological differences between men and women. Particularly in European and Middle Eastern societies, maybe somewhat less in Asia and Africa.

    My impression is that sexual dimorphism is much more noticeable in settled agricultural societies than in hunter gatherer societies.

    This is pretty much completely backwards.

    In hunter-gather societies the women gather and have babies. The men hunt and *fight* with other tribes (and sometimes among themselves over leadership and the women). There is a high level of violence. Savoir those words–”hunt”, “fight”, “violence”. These aren’t soy boys. (I’m perplexed where people get these weird ideas about hunter-gatherers. Do they think it’s like a camping trip?–And even camping trips quickly reveal sexual-dimorphism.)

    In contrast, in settled agricultural societies the dimorphism in personality tends to recede. Men handle the heavy work with the draft animals, while women do child care, housework and gardening. But the couple–and all their kids–are part of this joint family project “the farm”.

    My grandparents–while sterotypically male and female–were quite a bit a like in many ways, edges ground and smoothed a bit to fit their roles in farm labor.

    As Steve’s pointed out, the modern liberation of women (and men) from all this farm and household labor and general high prosperity and career choice isn’t creating androgyny, rather guys are off being “guys” and the gals are becoming every more girly-girls.

    Read More
    • Replies: @unpc downunder
    The reigning ideology of the modern West is personal autonomy. Hence, people just follow their biological instincts under the softening effects of technological comfort and the dictates of PC ideology.

    Masculine men are still pretty macho (and more masculine looking than ever) relatively feminine men are acting more feminine. Feminine women are still pretty feminine (and spend more money looking pretty than ever) while relatively masculine women are acting more masculine. If it was simply a case of both sexes becoming more feminine, personal choices would shift in the direction of female-dominated activities. However, there is no general decline in interest in male-dominated activities, and some male-dominated activities (such as body-building and extreme sports) are now more popular than they were in the past.
    , @Bazza Mackenzie's Chunder doonunder
    It's amazing isn't it Dad (and Steve), how people can weave all sorts of verbiage into missing the bloody point.

    Here downunder where we don't have Mexicans, it is indeed apparent (as you suggest) that men are reverting into a hunter lifestyle as roaming 'tradies', servicing women nested in welfare enclaves with their babies. Gorillas in the mist. Bring it on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Wency says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    I don't know if it was monogamous, but it seems like it would have been hard for one man to monopolize multiple women without having a surplus of food.

    Polygamy doesn’t seem to be much of a feature among hunter-gatherers. Instead of “owning” multiple wives, hunter-gatherers living in abundance typically “rent” their women, living in “frat house” type arrangements among other men while the women raise a family of children sired by multiple fathers.

    Societies where making a living takes more effort typically have more monogamous and nuclear family arrangements.

    Hunter-gatherer societies often have ritualistic mechanisms for collectively conspiring and murdering “bullies”, including the sort of men who would bogart all the women. This helps preserve the egalitarianism of their societies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Dave Pinsen
    Right. It was egalitarian in the sense that there were no classes, inequality, etc. That came with agriculture, surplus of food, civilization.

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/943712191320117248

    Right. It was egalitarian in the sense that there were no classes, inequality, etc. That came with agriculture, surplus of food, civilization.

    Thanks Dave. Yeah i’m continually surprised that there are apparently a bunch of even pretty smart people–commenters here even–who just don’t seem to have any understanding of this complete phase change of human history with the neolithic.

    That is the start of hierachary and the looting class. Hunter-gathers might attack another tribe to protect (or take) hunting/gathering territory and might well steal their women and annihilate them. In fact, that happened a lot. But there generally wasn’t that much beyond women that could be stolen. Certainly nothing that could be *repeatedly* stolen to live off of.

    The looting and parasite classes start with the neolithic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Right. Even if you wanted to be a full time raider, without anyone having a surplus of food, that wouldn't work, because you couldn't steal enough food to eat.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Anonymous
    That white person had the temerity to imply that his country is being overrun. And there's much more, but I won't bore you except to remind you that this is supposed to be a car magazine, and BTW: "We’ve Temporarily Removed Comments"

    The best “comment” that readers could, and perhaps should, make is to cancel their subscriptions, and to let them know exactly why they refuse to spend money on this magazine any longer. Doubt it would work to change their minds; the arc of leftist history demands that they double down despite evidence that those with sense are not buying it.

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

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

    Science itself is evil because it leads to great inequalities. Before rise of modern science, all peoples were more or less equal in power. The West didn’t great ships and guns. Damn that science and technology. Why can’t we all go back to sticks and stones? More equal that way.

    In an illiterate primitive society, the most that someone like Einstein, Edison, and Gates could do is make a better bow or spear. They would be like other savages. But due to damn science and technology, they made themselves so much more honored or richer than others.

    Invention of money was a great evil. When people bartered or traded with clams, wealth was a lot more equal.

    Even slavery was ok in savagery cuz master and slave were more equal. Slave slept in a small mudhut and master had a bigger mudhut. The richest guy in the tribe had 5 spears than one, what the poorest guy had.

    We need to return to hunter-gathering days. We need savage justice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  108. Old Jew says:
    @Unladen Swallow
    Scientific American was still a pretty serious magazine even in late 80's-early 90's, but within a couple of years IIRC it had gone over to the pop-science format with journalists writing everything. Prior to that it had real top scientists publish articles about their actual research in it's pages, that would be inconceivable today.

    You are a kindred spirit. I owned an almost full collection of SciAm since 1973 (when I got into the USA).
    Got old. We had to downsize from single home to apartment.

    I wanted to donate the collection. Neither the library nor the local college wanted it. The local collage had some 4 issues, from way back, missing.

    I provided them. All the rest to recycling.

    I can confirm your observation. The scientific tenor and the rigor went down.

    In the last few years I continued alternatively with electronic subscriptions or paper ones. But do not save them. There were a few articles written by actual scientists. most are by “science journalists”. And the scientists are not of the hard sciences, and not stars of magnitude 1. (They may still become famous)

    Read More
    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    SA was good enough to make it into my science class readers in college in the late 80's. Both my immunology and virology readers had photocopied articles from SA explaining, with excellent graphics, the processes involved with viruses and white or red blood cells. In fact, I enjoyed those articles far above what was in the actual textbooks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @SimpleSong
    I mostly remembered it from the '90s when it was a reasonably respectable general interest mag that avoided Popular Mechanics style buffoonery (flying cars! Next year! We swear this time!). However I also remember running across some Scientific American issues from back in the early 70s (I believe) and being shocked at how highbrow it had been. It was just slightly below the level of a real peer reviewed journal. So the descent has been stretched over a good 40 years and now it seems it has landed just slightly above the level of People magazine. Actually at this point I much prefer PopMech since they seem to embrace their own campiness.

    Neither the term "Scientific", nor the term "American", have any real meaning in our modern society so I'm not surprised this has happened.

    The big sellout was right around the turn of the century.

    It rotted from the head down.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. I thought the Big Thing for hunter-gatherer societies was the Dawn Raid or the Massacre. Kill all the men and do the Rape of the Sabine Women on the women.

    But I must have missed something.

    Also, in War Before Civilization, if the number of men in a tribe got too low the tribe would dissolve and the women would be distributed into the neighboring tribes who would take over the old tribe’s territory. I wonder what the social status of these distributed women would be.

    But don’t mind me, I’m a racist, sexist, homophobe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    "I wonder what the social status of these distributed women would be."

    Probably depended on how interested the Alpha was in them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Hail says: • Website
    @Bill
    NR is bizarre. Derbyshire is ungood, but Richwine is good.

    Maybe NR were taken over by an anti-British cabal around the time as Derbyshire’s “Beware of Blacks” essay.

    What kind of name is Richwine? All wiki picks up is a bass-guitarist and back-up vocalist named Gary Richwine for a 1977 album called Windy City Breakdown. It is not implausible that Gary Richwine is Jason’s father (or uncle), given that Jason was born in 1982. Presumably the 1977 bass guitarist was young, perhaps approaching fatherhood-age at the time of that album (the main singer was b. 1950).

    It seems likely that “Richwine” comes “Reichwein,” one bearer of whom was sentenced to death in late 1944 Germany for treason (Adolf Reichwein). So at least Jason can argue that he has family-name anti-Nazi street cred. (There were also some Norwegian Reichweins and everyone likes Norwegians.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Inquiring Mind
    Why the shade thrown on Popular Mechanics? Flying cars -- are you thinking about Popular Science?

    Since we are talking about sexual dimorphism, what counts for "women's magazines" are those featured at the supermarket checkout counter for impulse purchase. Besides the "tabloids" lead by National Enquirer, what do you see there? Cosmopolitan, no? With its cover showing a half-naked female model each issue? And its completely sex-obsessed article headlines?

    So then what is a men's magazine? Playbox? Esquire? A true men's magazine is Popular Mechanics, which I had seen once at the supermarket checkout when its cover was "We fly the B-2 Stealth Bomber." This is something men want to know, especially since so few of them were ever made and only a figurative handful of men, yes men, have ever taken the controls. And if you are wondering as most men do, the B-2 is "fly-by-wire", piloted through a "joy stick", and its aerodynamic handling is heavily mediated by a computer algorithm, so it flies much like the Anglo-French Airbus family of passenger jets, which pretty much settles the question.

    Now at the risk of offending earnest 9-11 Truthers among iSteve's loyal readers, Popular Mechanics has been a serious publication in addressing the claim "But steel doesn't burn" that had been a talking point on, you guessed it, The View, although I don't recall whether it was Joy Behar or Whoopi Goldberg offering that bit of material science and metallurgical insight.

    Popular Mechanics devoted page space to explaining that if steel doesn't catch fire, it could certainly soften and hence weaken if exposed to a raging jet-fuel-fed fire. There was a major public university with a male, Mechanical Engineering professor as its Provost (whose engineering specialization, by the way, was in combustion), who was in the eye-of-the-storm and offering a lame defense regarding some non-tenured instructor who was teaching Trutherism in the classroom. There was a suggestion of buying the Provost a subscription.

    Sorry; you’re actually right, I shouldn’t disrespect PopMech. I actually really enjoy them, and nowadays they’re probably one of the more reputable popular science/engineering magazines. They’ve had a strange trajectory where they went from being founded as a highly practical, down to earth mechanics journal, to some real zaniness and techno-utopianism, and now back to a relatively reputable general interest engineering mag with some how-to thrown in. I think realized where their reputation was going and corrected course around the 1990s. Back then I used to say that Technology Review was a highbrow Popular Mechanics but I actually think that the PMs quality is probably better than Technology Review or Wired at this point. Those guys went down the SJW rabbit hole a few years back.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Anonymous
    To this day, in modern India, many a half-starved Dalit has no trouble in finding, keeping and dominating a wife,in the 'old fashioned way'.
    Not to mention him siring hordes of children which he is able to 'feed' adequately.

    In tropical climates it’s different. There’s no winter, when the only available food source is big game hunting for hunters-gatherers. Oh and Dalits are not hunting-gathering, they can have other sources of food. No need for Dalit women to go hunting in winter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "Dalits are not hunting-gathering, they can have other sources of food"

    They are the only caste that can empty latrines.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @TomSchmidt
    How did the farmers go for months without others overrunning their fields? The soldiers MUST have preceded the farmers. See Jane Jacobs' The Economy of Cities, where she explains (confirmed by recent archeological evidence) that agriculture MUST have developed in cities.

    In primitive cultures, the distinction between hunter and fighter are slim to none. The existence of a full-time warrior class did indeed require the accumulation of wealth which was only possible with agriculture.

    Slash and burn horticulture is an example of simple agriculture practiced by tribes, who had advanced beyond simply hunting and gathering, but still are largely nomadic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    In the book 1491, Charles Mann talks about the slash-and-burn tribes of the Amazon, which we now see as performing an ancient type of farming. He makes a convincing argument that the original residents of the Amazon were able to build large societies in one location by "farming"the forest, shaping the growth of trees that would supply food for human populations. He cites the work of an anthropologist who shows that, due to the poor soil, no large settlement in the Amazon could have depended on conventional fields, whether slash and burn or otherwise.

    He makes a point in the book about the difficult task of breeding corn from teosinte, its predecessor, and how that task would challenge modern geneticists. It suggest a complex, knowledge-based society to create the grain. Could the slash and burners do that? Unlikely. So it depends on whether slash and burn people are propagating natural crops, or man-developed ones, else slash and burn is just derivative of agriculture developed elsewhere.

    Every man a warrior would remind one of how they could protect fields. In slash and burn, one understanding of protection is being deep in a forest where other humans will not invade. Of course, the men would need to be hunting to get food while the crops grew and matured, while also expending energy to defend the crops.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @SimpleSong
    I mostly remembered it from the '90s when it was a reasonably respectable general interest mag that avoided Popular Mechanics style buffoonery (flying cars! Next year! We swear this time!). However I also remember running across some Scientific American issues from back in the early 70s (I believe) and being shocked at how highbrow it had been. It was just slightly below the level of a real peer reviewed journal. So the descent has been stretched over a good 40 years and now it seems it has landed just slightly above the level of People magazine. Actually at this point I much prefer PopMech since they seem to embrace their own campiness.

    Neither the term "Scientific", nor the term "American", have any real meaning in our modern society so I'm not surprised this has happened.

    I so agree from 1977, when I first took out a subscription to about 2008 when I stopped, Unvalued it so much that I bound the copies annually. It had become The New Scientist. Now …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Anonymous
    To this day, in modern India, many a half-starved Dalit has no trouble in finding, keeping and dominating a wife,in the 'old fashioned way'.
    Not to mention him siring hordes of children which he is able to 'feed' adequately.

    They’re still able to feed them. If you look at records of Native Americans, the truly hunting-gathering bands as opposed to ones such as the Iroquois who practiced agriculture, risks of starvation were real and constant. For the most archetypical hunter-gathering band, there’s no concept of wealth – there’s not even a way to keep food from spoiling.

    In such societies, polygamy is difficult at best. Infanticide and abandonment is common. The existence of agriculture and the concept of wealth is what promoted chiefdoms, seen as the first evolution from pure tribal societies, where the “big man and his elite bodyguards” would form the beginnings of an elite that could monopolize women. Even the Yanomami produce flour which can be accumulated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @TomSchmidt
    I find IEEE spectrum gives me some of the broader scientific view withou the PC that SciAm used to.

    Spectrum regularly wins prizes for science writing despite its closed circulation. I’m semi retired so I am now down to the UK’s IET Engineering & Technology. Not bad but Spectrum was much better

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Old Jew
    You are a kindred spirit. I owned an almost full collection of SciAm since 1973 (when I got into the USA).
    Got old. We had to downsize from single home to apartment.

    I wanted to donate the collection. Neither the library nor the local college wanted it. The local collage had some 4 issues, from way back, missing.

    I provided them. All the rest to recycling.

    I can confirm your observation. The scientific tenor and the rigor went down.

    In the last few years I continued alternatively with electronic subscriptions or paper ones. But do not save them. There were a few articles written by actual scientists. most are by "science journalists". And the scientists are not of the hard sciences, and not stars of magnitude 1. (They may still become famous)

    SA was good enough to make it into my science class readers in college in the late 80′s. Both my immunology and virology readers had photocopied articles from SA explaining, with excellent graphics, the processes involved with viruses and white or red blood cells. In fact, I enjoyed those articles far above what was in the actual textbooks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Sean says:

    Horgan is sort of right about hunter gatherers like the Bushmen, but black Africans are not hunter gatherers. If Horgan is looking for the origins of patriarchy maybe he should give the Victorians a break and read Gimbutas

    [she] gained fame and notoriety in the English-speaking world with her last three English-language books: The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe (1974); The Language of the Goddess (1989), which inspired an exhibition in Wiesbaden, 1993-4; and the last of the three, The Civilization of the Goddess (1991), which, based on her documented archaeological findings, presented an overview of her conclusions about Neolithic cultures across Europe: housing patterns, social structure, art, religion, and the nature of literacy.

    The Civilization of the Goddess articulated what Gimbutas saw as the differences between the Old European system, which she considered goddess- and woman-centered (gynocentric), and the Bronze Age Indo-European patriarchal (“androcratic”) culture which supplanted it. According to her interpretations, gynocentric (or matristic) societies were peaceful, honored women, and espoused economic equality.

    The androcratic, or male-dominated, Kurgan peoples, on the other hand, invaded Europe and imposed upon its natives the hierarchical rule of male warriors

    . <a title=”"https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/what-would-a-machine-as-smart-as-god-want/"&#8221; href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/what-would-a-machine-as-smart-as-god-want/&quot; Two in three European men are descended from 3 Bronze age Kurgan men.To paraphrase the title of an Edge event honoring Napoleon Chagnon, Blood Was Their Argument.

    Horgan is an Artificial (General) Intelligence denier too. He had a post What Would a Machine as Smart as God Want?. He is quite a few orders of magnitude out about when uber-AGI will be here, and he is missing the point. As Bostrom has noted, any number of possible ultimate goals for a super AGI would converge on the instrumental goal of exterminating the human species.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  120. J.Ross says: • Website
    @John Derbyshire

    J-school writers are the clearest answer to the faith that universities can design a course for any occupation. When confronted with a new writer I look into what else he’s done. Heather MacDonald might be the best introductory-conservative writer, she’s a better journalist than a lot of “real” journalists, and she’s a lawyer by training. There used to be a sense (it seems to me) that the training to be a great writer was heavily phronetic, with Hemingway and Cummings driving military ambulances, or Jack London working punishing jobs. Even Lovecraft had a good grasp of hard sciences. So you go out into the world to prove yourself in some other field, and your experiences buy you the right to be a writer, and give you perspectives you will never stumble across in a post-grad library.
    If you look at journalism or “creative writing” or academic publications and events concerned with writing, you’re looking more often than not at dutiful tuition-payers who “workshop” and “self-examine” when they should’ve been skinning their knees.
    There is a Native American myth that as you arrive in the afterlife you are greeted by a wrinkled norn who will eat your scars. If you have no scars, she will eat your eyes. I would feel better about j-schools if they couldn’t go past the master’s level and had that myth inscribed over their doors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonguy
    I run into people all the time saying, "I would love to be a writer", but then when I ask, "What would you like to write about?", it is often crickets or hesitant speculation, as if they had never considered than aspect of writing.

    Far more people want to be writers than actually write. The ones who do want to write are actually writing as we speak rather than pining after it and their primary motivation is something other than the desire to write, writing is just the means to an end.

    Steve, was the general desire to be a writer ever a big thing in your development?
    , @Art Deco
    I think H.L. Mencken landed a newspaper job at around age 18 and remained employed in journalism for the next 50 years. James Kilgallen I think was also a newspaperman for nearly his entire worklife. Mencken was a contemporary of Jack London and Kilgallen the next set of cohorts down.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Sean says:

    [correction]

    Two in three European men are descended from 3 Bronze age Kurgan men. To paraphrase the title of an Edge event honoring Napoleon Chagnon, Blood Was Their Argument.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  122. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Anonymous IV
    Horgan's M.O. for writing a book is to line up 10-12 experts, then go interview each one. Each interview becomes a chapter in the book. Tack on an intro and a summing-it-up concluding chapter, and you've got a book! At no point does Horgan himself do any heavy lifting intellectually. (Actually this "collection of interviews" approach to book writing is pretty common among journalists these days--not unique to Horgan.)

    BBC Radio has a program called The Inquiry that uses this format. You’ll never believe this, but by some miracle none of the experts they select ever disagree with each other! What luck!
    They are preceded by a BBC documentary video format in which The Experts are presented one at a time, answering unaired questions, to create the impression of choral harmony and Settled Science.
    The worst example of this was a program in which they presented Lying Jack Kerkove, who thinks the Constitution was written in the Carter administration by lobbyists in order to sell more Rugers, without explaining to Britons that in this country we do not consider him to be an expert on anything.
    To their credit they are one of the few establishmentarian mouthpieces who have acknowledged the existence of the reproduction and replication crisis. That episode was as good as it could have been. It would have been too much for them to make the connection between the current crisis of official authority and “science” consisting of big pharma ads and thinking real deep about what it means to be black.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Pat Boyle says:
    @Anonymous
    Science has morphed from an intellectual pursuit with strict standards into just another social-political cudgel by which we may harass and oppress white males. Any science not appropriate for this purpose is ipso facto not science. Hope this clarifies things for you all.

    The reason, I like others here, stopped reading Scientific American is that it ceased being either Scientific or American decades ago. The magazine was bought by a left wing German company and quickly became unrecognizable. In the old days major scientists published largely politics free articles on their research interests. Then it became just another pop science magazine like “Discovery” but with a strong ideological bent.

    Read More
    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @boogerbently
    Sold in 1986 to Holtzbrink Publishing. Soros connections.

    Wiki: " Few Americans realize that two German Gesellschaften are gaining stranglehold on US books.” Thus, the German media influences Kaplan writes about is also tied up with book publishing as well. Holtzbrinck Publishers and Bertelsmann control most of the big name publishing houses and a sizable market share of all the books produced in the United States. Bertelsmann is a media colossus that has been described as a “state within a state.” Bertelsmann played no small role in the dramatic rise of both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @John Derbyshire

    a dead child, like a broken doll, spreadeagled in the deserted roadway below his window — you know.

    Waugh was a prophet or simply wise, since that gag still works–from Kuwait to Syria to Merkel’s Mistake.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @AnotherDad

    My impression is that sexual dimorphism is much more noticeable in settled agricultural societies than in hunter gatherer societies.
     
    This is pretty much completely backwards.

    In hunter-gather societies the women gather and have babies. The men hunt and *fight* with other tribes (and sometimes among themselves over leadership and the women). There is a high level of violence. Savoir those words--"hunt", "fight", "violence". These aren't soy boys. (I'm perplexed where people get these weird ideas about hunter-gatherers. Do they think it's like a camping trip?--And even camping trips quickly reveal sexual-dimorphism.)


    In contrast, in settled agricultural societies the dimorphism in personality tends to recede. Men handle the heavy work with the draft animals, while women do child care, housework and gardening. But the couple--and all their kids--are part of this joint family project "the farm".

    My grandparents--while sterotypically male and female--were quite a bit a like in many ways, edges ground and smoothed a bit to fit their roles in farm labor.

    As Steve's pointed out, the modern liberation of women (and men) from all this farm and household labor and general high prosperity and career choice isn't creating androgyny, rather guys are off being "guys" and the gals are becoming every more girly-girls.

    The reigning ideology of the modern West is personal autonomy. Hence, people just follow their biological instincts under the softening effects of technological comfort and the dictates of PC ideology.

    Masculine men are still pretty macho (and more masculine looking than ever) relatively feminine men are acting more feminine. Feminine women are still pretty feminine (and spend more money looking pretty than ever) while relatively masculine women are acting more masculine. If it was simply a case of both sexes becoming more feminine, personal choices would shift in the direction of female-dominated activities. However, there is no general decline in interest in male-dominated activities, and some male-dominated activities (such as body-building and extreme sports) are now more popular than they were in the past.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    That is nonsensical. The modern world is far more feminine - as Pinker noted, if nothing else, consider the plummeting status of violence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Daniel Chieh
    There is a lot of truth in that, the lack of the ability to accumulate wealth certainly created a form of equality. Still, even at its "best", hunter-gatherers practiced things that basically no society could imagine in order to even survive: infanticide, abandonment of the elderly, and there's even evidence of cannibalism.

    And northern Native Americans, who were hunter-gatherers bands for all practical purposes, often had a system of hierarchy with chieftans having more women than others - still a genetic advantage.

    The FT profiled a group of modern hunter gatherers in Africa last year. They’re pretty egalitarian for just that reason: not much to hoard.

    The men turned to gambling for the afternoon. Gambling is not just social: it is a highly efficient way of sharing scarce resource across the community. They play a game of pure chance, so no one can win for long. By staking their valuables, the valuables get shared out eventually. Unlike trade and barter, which require skill, there is no chance of one person becoming richer than the others.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Luke Lea
    "One more thing: KSR on the beginning of economic inequality. pic.twitter.com/9JOjDdGEHg"

    You might like The Adam and Eve Story in its Mesopotamian Context: https://goo.gl/uikvFb

    Thanks, will check it out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @TomSchmidt
    How did the farmers go for months without others overrunning their fields? The soldiers MUST have preceded the farmers. See Jane Jacobs' The Economy of Cities, where she explains (confirmed by recent archeological evidence) that agriculture MUST have developed in cities.

    This sort of depends on how we’re defining soldiers, I guess, as Daniel Chieh suggests in his reply. If you mean men who occasionally raided other groups and defended against raiders, then sure. But if you mean full time warriors, then no: you need a surplus of food for that, which came with agriculture.

    Before there was agriculture and a surplus of food, being a full time anything other than hunter or gather was pretty rare. Maybe there were a handful of master axe makers or something like that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    Since the SJW left seems intent on ending civilization entirely, the question becomes: is it more interesting o live in a society where everyone has to do everything, with little specialization, or more interesting to live in a society where one specializes but loses touch with everything the tribe does?

    Since the SJWs are good at only one thing, causing trouble by shrieking, I suspect they won't make it in a world where you need to get along and know and do a lot of things. I think I'd be ok, except for the dentistry part of things.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @AnotherDad

    Right. It was egalitarian in the sense that there were no classes, inequality, etc. That came with agriculture, surplus of food, civilization.
     
    Thanks Dave. Yeah i'm continually surprised that there are apparently a bunch of even pretty smart people--commenters here even--who just don't seem to have any understanding of this complete phase change of human history with the neolithic.

    That is the start of hierachary and the looting class. Hunter-gathers might attack another tribe to protect (or take) hunting/gathering territory and might well steal their women and annihilate them. In fact, that happened a lot. But there generally wasn't that much beyond women that could be stolen. Certainly nothing that could be *repeatedly* stolen to live off of.

    The looting and parasite classes start with the neolithic.

    Right. Even if you wanted to be a full time raider, without anyone having a surplus of food, that wouldn’t work, because you couldn’t steal enough food to eat.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @TomSchmidt
    How did the farmers go for months without others overrunning their fields? The soldiers MUST have preceded the farmers. See Jane Jacobs' The Economy of Cities, where she explains (confirmed by recent archeological evidence) that agriculture MUST have developed in cities.

    How did the farmers go for months without others overrunning their fields? The soldiers MUST have preceded the farmers. See Jane Jacobs’ The Economy of Cities, where she explains (confirmed by recent archeological evidence) that agriculture MUST have developed in cities.

    Your point applies to plow agriculture, particularly of grains, or to wet rice (paddy) agriculture, but not to the simpler swidden agriculture.

    Cities and plow agriculture developed contemporaneously, as you say, neither being viable without the other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    I would refer you to Jane Jacobs' The Economy of Cities, as she traces the growth of a place she calls New Obsidian, based on the city of Çatalhöyük In Turkey. First it's a trading post, defended by men because it is not far from fields of obsidian glass, used to make knives and weapons. Gradually, the wild animals brought to the city for sale have he most violent ones killed first, with the more docile ones eventually bred. Meanwhile, the wild grasses brought from afar are able to cross-breed as the residents of New Obsidian plant small amounts in their sheltered places, protected by the existing social arrangement, o have a supply of grain.

    It makes for a nice, fanciful counterfactual History. When I first researched it, I contacted archeologists at two major universities. No, they calmly explained, agriculture developed before cities. Jane was wrong.

    Recent excavations in Göbekli Tepe showed that Jacobs was right. To quote Wikipedia:

    scholars suggest that the Neolithic revolution, in particular the beginnings of grain cultivation (i.e. not animal husbandry) took place here. Schmidt believed, as others do, that mobile groups in the area were compelled to cooperate with each other to protect early concentrations of wild cereals from wild animals (herds of gazelles and wild donkeys). Wild cereals may have been used for sustenance more intensively than before and were perhaps deliberately cultivated. This would have led to early social organization of various groups in the area of Göbekli Tepe. Thus, according to Schmidt, the Neolithic did not begin on a small scale in the form of individual instances of garden cultivation, but developed rapidly in the form of "a large-scale social organization".[38]
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @AnotherDad

    My impression is that sexual dimorphism is much more noticeable in settled agricultural societies than in hunter gatherer societies.
     
    This is pretty much completely backwards.

    In hunter-gather societies the women gather and have babies. The men hunt and *fight* with other tribes (and sometimes among themselves over leadership and the women). There is a high level of violence. Savoir those words--"hunt", "fight", "violence". These aren't soy boys. (I'm perplexed where people get these weird ideas about hunter-gatherers. Do they think it's like a camping trip?--And even camping trips quickly reveal sexual-dimorphism.)


    In contrast, in settled agricultural societies the dimorphism in personality tends to recede. Men handle the heavy work with the draft animals, while women do child care, housework and gardening. But the couple--and all their kids--are part of this joint family project "the farm".

    My grandparents--while sterotypically male and female--were quite a bit a like in many ways, edges ground and smoothed a bit to fit their roles in farm labor.

    As Steve's pointed out, the modern liberation of women (and men) from all this farm and household labor and general high prosperity and career choice isn't creating androgyny, rather guys are off being "guys" and the gals are becoming every more girly-girls.

    It’s amazing isn’t it Dad (and Steve), how people can weave all sorts of verbiage into missing the bloody point.

    Here downunder where we don’t have Mexicans, it is indeed apparent (as you suggest) that men are reverting into a hunter lifestyle as roaming ‘tradies’, servicing women nested in welfare enclaves with their babies. Gorillas in the mist. Bring it on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Melendwyr says: • Website

    Discover Magazine is basically a lighterweight version of SciAm; as the greater has gone, so has the lesser went. Exactly the same pattern in miniature.

    The real issue here is that there’s no economic demand for good science journalism, and a great deal to be gained by pandering to lower and lower common denominators. Why should they tell people things they don’t want to hear when there’s no reward for doing so? They’d go out of business – or more probably, be replaced by someone who’d then work under the old name.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  133. @reiner Tor
    In tropical climates it’s different. There’s no winter, when the only available food source is big game hunting for hunters-gatherers. Oh and Dalits are not hunting-gathering, they can have other sources of food. No need for Dalit women to go hunting in winter.

    “Dalits are not hunting-gathering, they can have other sources of food”

    They are the only caste that can empty latrines.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @anon
    Except for that whole hunter-gatherer part of the hunter-gatherer societies, but otherwise …

    See, this is a perfect joke. It's great. But the I F*cking Love Science types won't even get that it's supposed to be a joke.

    What are people like us supposed to do?

    It's maddening.

    See, this is a perfect joke. It’s great. But the I F*cking Love Science types won’t even get that it’s supposed to be a joke.

    What are people like us supposed to do?

    It’s maddening.

    Jokes – ahh -Freud said: Jokes are closely related to an open aggression – and what you are talking about is caring – you care about those, who do not laugh – you got that entirely wrong: Because it’s fun, really, if somebody makes you laugh – give it a try.

    And afterwards -back – or ahead! – to the arguments against those, who didn’t – or wouldn’t, – laugh!

    ( But before that: A good laugh – if sardonic, that’d be allright too, mesays).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. AndrewR says:
    @SimpleSong
    I mostly remembered it from the '90s when it was a reasonably respectable general interest mag that avoided Popular Mechanics style buffoonery (flying cars! Next year! We swear this time!). However I also remember running across some Scientific American issues from back in the early 70s (I believe) and being shocked at how highbrow it had been. It was just slightly below the level of a real peer reviewed journal. So the descent has been stretched over a good 40 years and now it seems it has landed just slightly above the level of People magazine. Actually at this point I much prefer PopMech since they seem to embrace their own campiness.

    Neither the term "Scientific", nor the term "American", have any real meaning in our modern society so I'm not surprised this has happened.

    This guy really is a piece of work. He race-baits, puts words in others’ mouths and uses boilerplate SJW rhetoric in order to explicitly degrade white males.

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/google-engineer-fired-for-sexist-memo-isnt-a-hero/

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    The ones sticking a late token lance into Damore's career are the scariest because they do not seem to be familiar with that one quote from Man For All Seasons:

    ...And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Pat Boyle
    The reason, I like others here, stopped reading Scientific American is that it ceased being either Scientific or American decades ago. The magazine was bought by a left wing German company and quickly became unrecognizable. In the old days major scientists published largely politics free articles on their research interests. Then it became just another pop science magazine like "Discovery" but with a strong ideological bent.

    Sold in 1986 to Holtzbrink Publishing. Soros connections.

    Wiki: ” Few Americans realize that two German Gesellschaften are gaining stranglehold on US books.” Thus, the German media influences Kaplan writes about is also tied up with book publishing as well. Holtzbrinck Publishers and Bertelsmann control most of the big name publishing houses and a sizable market share of all the books produced in the United States. Bertelsmann is a media colossus that has been described as a “state within a state.” Bertelsmann played no small role in the dramatic rise of both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Bertelsmann is now the de facto Soros/NWO entity in Germany providing policy guidance to Angela Merkel's administration.

    Bertelsmann also provides Internet censorship and intimidation services for Zuckerberg's Facebook, Twitter, Google and others.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Dan Hayes
    Hail:

    The Holtzbrinck Group continues their mission of spreading (ie, propagandizing) their biased version of the truth.

    Recently in the news:

    https://www.thewrap.com/fcc-sinclair-broadcasting-fine/

    “Sinclair Broadcast Group is an American telecommunications company that is owned by the family of company founder Julian Sinclair Smith. Headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland, the company is the largest television station operator in the United States by number of stations, and largest by total coverage; owning and/or operating a total of 193 stations across the country (233 after all currently proposed sales are approved) in over 100 markets (covering 40% of American households), many of which are located in the South and Midwest. Sinclair also owns four digital multicast networks (Comet, Charge!, Stadium, and TBD) and one cable network (Tennis Channel), and owns or operates four radio stations (all based in the Pacific Northwest region).”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Logan says:

    Oh, boy.

    Hunter-gatherer societies are egalitarian in that they don’t have much in the way of men domineering over other men. Most of them, however, have very strong sex roles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  139. @TomSchmidt
    This is still the canonical satire on feminism applied in biology:
    https://www.theonion.com/study-finds-sexism-rampant-in-nature-1819566369

    Man, that's funny.

    “To mate, the male Galapagos tortoise simply immobilizes the female with his weight, which, as far as I’m concerned, qualifies as non-consensual sex…”

    They don’t really live for 200 years, it just feels like it.

    Bedbugs mate by what is essentially aggravated rape. Mature females can withstand it. Immature females cannot, not to mention males of any age. Crafty exterminators have learned to mess with their pheromones so the horndogs kill off the rest.

    I was going to pitch this script to the Weinsteins, but thought it better not to give them any more ideas.

    Read More
    • LOL: TomSchmidt
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    It's already a famous science fiction story: The Screw-Fly Solution, by Alice Sheldon identifying as James Tiptree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Mr. Anon

    But the I F*cking Love Science types won’t even get that it’s supposed to be a joke.
     
    They F*cking Love Science. They don't F*cking Understand Science.

    They F*cking Love Science. They don’t F*cking Understand Science.

    Yeah, they do. But they all have an asterisk.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @unpc downunder
    The reigning ideology of the modern West is personal autonomy. Hence, people just follow their biological instincts under the softening effects of technological comfort and the dictates of PC ideology.

    Masculine men are still pretty macho (and more masculine looking than ever) relatively feminine men are acting more feminine. Feminine women are still pretty feminine (and spend more money looking pretty than ever) while relatively masculine women are acting more masculine. If it was simply a case of both sexes becoming more feminine, personal choices would shift in the direction of female-dominated activities. However, there is no general decline in interest in male-dominated activities, and some male-dominated activities (such as body-building and extreme sports) are now more popular than they were in the past.

    That is nonsensical. The modern world is far more feminine – as Pinker noted, if nothing else, consider the plummeting status of violence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Inquiring Mind
    Why the shade thrown on Popular Mechanics? Flying cars -- are you thinking about Popular Science?

    Since we are talking about sexual dimorphism, what counts for "women's magazines" are those featured at the supermarket checkout counter for impulse purchase. Besides the "tabloids" lead by National Enquirer, what do you see there? Cosmopolitan, no? With its cover showing a half-naked female model each issue? And its completely sex-obsessed article headlines?

    So then what is a men's magazine? Playbox? Esquire? A true men's magazine is Popular Mechanics, which I had seen once at the supermarket checkout when its cover was "We fly the B-2 Stealth Bomber." This is something men want to know, especially since so few of them were ever made and only a figurative handful of men, yes men, have ever taken the controls. And if you are wondering as most men do, the B-2 is "fly-by-wire", piloted through a "joy stick", and its aerodynamic handling is heavily mediated by a computer algorithm, so it flies much like the Anglo-French Airbus family of passenger jets, which pretty much settles the question.

    Now at the risk of offending earnest 9-11 Truthers among iSteve's loyal readers, Popular Mechanics has been a serious publication in addressing the claim "But steel doesn't burn" that had been a talking point on, you guessed it, The View, although I don't recall whether it was Joy Behar or Whoopi Goldberg offering that bit of material science and metallurgical insight.

    Popular Mechanics devoted page space to explaining that if steel doesn't catch fire, it could certainly soften and hence weaken if exposed to a raging jet-fuel-fed fire. There was a major public university with a male, Mechanical Engineering professor as its Provost (whose engineering specialization, by the way, was in combustion), who was in the eye-of-the-storm and offering a lame defense regarding some non-tenured instructor who was teaching Trutherism in the classroom. There was a suggestion of buying the Provost a subscription.

    I remember when Popular Mechanics published a letter from a gun controller asking that they stop publishing articles on firearms. They responded: “No.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Reg Cæsar

    "To mate, the male Galapagos tortoise simply immobilizes the female with his weight, which, as far as I'm concerned, qualifies as non-consensual sex..."
     
    They don't really live for 200 years, it just feels like it.

    Bedbugs mate by what is essentially aggravated rape. Mature females can withstand it. Immature females cannot, not to mention males of any age. Crafty exterminators have learned to mess with their pheromones so the horndogs kill off the rest.

    I was going to pitch this script to the Weinsteins, but thought it better not to give them any more ideas.

    It’s already a famous science fiction story: The Screw-Fly Solution, by Alice Sheldon identifying as James Tiptree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. J.Ross says: • Website
    @AndrewR
    This guy really is a piece of work. He race-baits, puts words in others' mouths and uses boilerplate SJW rhetoric in order to explicitly degrade white males.

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/google-engineer-fired-for-sexist-memo-isnt-a-hero/

    The ones sticking a late token lance into Damore’s career are the scariest because they do not seem to be familiar with that one quote from Man For All Seasons:

    …And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you–where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast–man’s laws, not God’s–and if you cut them down…d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. anonguy says:

    I’m going to guess being in a hunter-gatherer tribe might be sorta similar to being in an infantry platoon.

    When on mission/in the field, you are all brothers and on point. Back at the ranch and off mission, you are fully willing to vigorously fight each other over women, booze, or nearly anything else out of sheer boredom/aggression or maybe just keeping skills sharp.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  146. anonguy says:
    @TomSchmidt
    They had an editor take over early 90s who decided that he had to fight people in Kansas who didn't accept evolution. He turned it from a magazine of science into a political journal. I stopped subscribing then.

    They had an editor take over early 90s who decided that he had to fight people in Kansas who didn’t accept evolution. He turned it from a magazine of science into a political journal. I stopped subscribing then.

    Isn’t it amazing how many current trends first began manifesting themselves in the early 90s?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It's going to be awhile before people recognize this, but 1981 and 1992 were major inflection points. Before the early 1980s we weren't even in debt, relatively speaking.

    Granted, for America, the Great Inflection was Hart-Celler, and most people don't even know about that.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @boogerbently
    Sold in 1986 to Holtzbrink Publishing. Soros connections.

    Wiki: " Few Americans realize that two German Gesellschaften are gaining stranglehold on US books.” Thus, the German media influences Kaplan writes about is also tied up with book publishing as well. Holtzbrinck Publishers and Bertelsmann control most of the big name publishing houses and a sizable market share of all the books produced in the United States. Bertelsmann is a media colossus that has been described as a “state within a state.” Bertelsmann played no small role in the dramatic rise of both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama."

    Bertelsmann is now the de facto Soros/NWO entity in Germany providing policy guidance to Angela Merkel’s administration.

    Bertelsmann also provides Internet censorship and intimidation services for Zuckerberg’s Facebook, Twitter, Google and others.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. I hope you guys are ready for stuff to get really, really weird. There’s a tangible change to the insanity and there’s no going back.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  149. anonguy says:
    @J.Ross
    J-school writers are the clearest answer to the faith that universities can design a course for any occupation. When confronted with a new writer I look into what else he's done. Heather MacDonald might be the best introductory-conservative writer, she's a better journalist than a lot of "real" journalists, and she's a lawyer by training. There used to be a sense (it seems to me) that the training to be a great writer was heavily phronetic, with Hemingway and Cummings driving military ambulances, or Jack London working punishing jobs. Even Lovecraft had a good grasp of hard sciences. So you go out into the world to prove yourself in some other field, and your experiences buy you the right to be a writer, and give you perspectives you will never stumble across in a post-grad library.
    If you look at journalism or "creative writing" or academic publications and events concerned with writing, you're looking more often than not at dutiful tuition-payers who "workshop" and "self-examine" when they should've been skinning their knees.
    There is a Native American myth that as you arrive in the afterlife you are greeted by a wrinkled norn who will eat your scars. If you have no scars, she will eat your eyes. I would feel better about j-schools if they couldn't go past the master's level and had that myth inscribed over their doors.

    I run into people all the time saying, “I would love to be a writer”, but then when I ask, “What would you like to write about?”, it is often crickets or hesitant speculation, as if they had never considered than aspect of writing.

    Far more people want to be writers than actually write. The ones who do want to write are actually writing as we speak rather than pining after it and their primary motivation is something other than the desire to write, writing is just the means to an end.

    Steve, was the general desire to be a writer ever a big thing in your development?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Opinionator
    Regarding differences between the sexes, of course there are no gender-equality utopias anywhere.

    What has been the prevalence of matriarchy?

    “What has been the prevalence of matriarchy?”

    According to my Sociology 201 textbook, nonexistent.

    According to movies (AKA documentaries), most civilizations are matriarchies.

    All movies are documentaries because the viewer’s enjoyment relies on convincing himself that the characters and events are real or at least plausible; otherwise, it becomes merely an exercise in critique: how good are the writing and acting, how convincing are the sets, how good are the special FX?

    Fiction is dangerous because there is no such thing as fiction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Did your Sociology text or course offer an explanation?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Moses
    The Onion reports "Study Finds Sexism Rampant in Nature." An oldie but a goodie. Brilliant satire.

    https://www.theonion.com/study-finds-sexism-rampant-in-nature-1819566369

    First Onion piece I ever read, absolutely hilarious. Today a lot of people would assume it was factual.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @reiner Tor
    Basically nonexistent.

    Amazing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    "What has been the prevalence of matriarchy?"

    According to my Sociology 201 textbook, nonexistent.

    According to movies (AKA documentaries), most civilizations are matriarchies.

    All movies are documentaries because the viewer's enjoyment relies on convincing himself that the characters and events are real or at least plausible; otherwise, it becomes merely an exercise in critique: how good are the writing and acting, how convincing are the sets, how good are the special FX?

    Fiction is dangerous because there is no such thing as fiction.

    Did your Sociology text or course offer an explanation?

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

    They had an editor take over early 90s who decided that he had to fight people in Kansas who didn’t accept evolution. He turned it from a magazine of science into a political journal. I stopped subscribing then.
     
    Isn't it amazing how many current trends first began manifesting themselves in the early 90s?

    It’s going to be awhile before people recognize this, but 1981 and 1992 were major inflection points. Before the early 1980s we weren’t even in debt, relatively speaking.

    Granted, for America, the Great Inflection was Hart-Celler, and most people don’t even know about that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Shortly after the revised edition of Stephen J. Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man” came out, a journal published a peer-reviewed meta review of the book that consisted of excerpts and commentary of every review in a science journal as well as selected reviews in mainstream publications, with the author’s commentary.
     
    Excuse me - you would not remember which Journal that was? I'd be interested in the article you mention.
    , @anonguy

    It’s going to be awhile before people recognize this, but 1981 and 1992 were major inflection points.
     
    It is only just the past few years have I begun to appreciate exactly how much the world changed after the end of the Cold War. Seems obvious now, but I guess it took a while for the pattern recognition to fire or something.

    We are now in the first stages of another paradigm breaking epoch enabled largely by social media. It is tearing down barriers between people similar to what done after the end of the Cold War.

    So Globalism, Act I was the open borders, free trade and the internet, about 25 years of that. Now, Globalism Act II is via social media everyone on earth is frictionlessly directly connected and can participate in direct democracy via like buttons, forwarding to friends, etc.

    This is all a good thing for humanity but not for the residuals of the Dark Age (pre 1989) like nations, borders, exclusive societies, toxic masculinity, Strangelovian nightmares, and a whole host of other things.

    I really do believe that human history arcs towards justice and decency. It certainly has in my lifetime and looks to be continuing the trend, if not accelerating it these days.

    Let's hope, and work to make it happen, that this time our new Belle Epoque isn't interrupted by the guns of August. I'm optimistic about that, FWIW.

    , @Opinionator
    What happened in 1981 and 1992?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Daniel Chieh
    In primitive cultures, the distinction between hunter and fighter are slim to none. The existence of a full-time warrior class did indeed require the accumulation of wealth which was only possible with agriculture.

    Slash and burn horticulture is an example of simple agriculture practiced by tribes, who had advanced beyond simply hunting and gathering, but still are largely nomadic.

    In the book 1491, Charles Mann talks about the slash-and-burn tribes of the Amazon, which we now see as performing an ancient type of farming. He makes a convincing argument that the original residents of the Amazon were able to build large societies in one location by “farming”the forest, shaping the growth of trees that would supply food for human populations. He cites the work of an anthropologist who shows that, due to the poor soil, no large settlement in the Amazon could have depended on conventional fields, whether slash and burn or otherwise.

    He makes a point in the book about the difficult task of breeding corn from teosinte, its predecessor, and how that task would challenge modern geneticists. It suggest a complex, knowledge-based society to create the grain. Could the slash and burners do that? Unlikely. So it depends on whether slash and burn people are propagating natural crops, or man-developed ones, else slash and burn is just derivative of agriculture developed elsewhere.

    Every man a warrior would remind one of how they could protect fields. In slash and burn, one understanding of protection is being deep in a forest where other humans will not invade. Of course, the men would need to be hunting to get food while the crops grew and matured, while also expending energy to defend the crops.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Dave Pinsen
    This sort of depends on how we're defining soldiers, I guess, as Daniel Chieh suggests in his reply. If you mean men who occasionally raided other groups and defended against raiders, then sure. But if you mean full time warriors, then no: you need a surplus of food for that, which came with agriculture.

    Before there was agriculture and a surplus of food, being a full time anything other than hunter or gather was pretty rare. Maybe there were a handful of master axe makers or something like that.

    Since the SJW left seems intent on ending civilization entirely, the question becomes: is it more interesting o live in a society where everyone has to do everything, with little specialization, or more interesting to live in a society where one specializes but loses touch with everything the tribe does?

    Since the SJWs are good at only one thing, causing trouble by shrieking, I suspect they won’t make it in a world where you need to get along and know and do a lot of things. I think I’d be ok, except for the dentistry part of things.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @another fred

    How did the farmers go for months without others overrunning their fields? The soldiers MUST have preceded the farmers. See Jane Jacobs’ The Economy of Cities, where she explains (confirmed by recent archeological evidence) that agriculture MUST have developed in cities.
     
    Your point applies to plow agriculture, particularly of grains, or to wet rice (paddy) agriculture, but not to the simpler swidden agriculture.

    Cities and plow agriculture developed contemporaneously, as you say, neither being viable without the other.

    I would refer you to Jane Jacobs’ The Economy of Cities, as she traces the growth of a place she calls New Obsidian, based on the city of Çatalhöyük In Turkey. First it’s a trading post, defended by men because it is not far from fields of obsidian glass, used to make knives and weapons. Gradually, the wild animals brought to the city for sale have he most violent ones killed first, with the more docile ones eventually bred. Meanwhile, the wild grasses brought from afar are able to cross-breed as the residents of New Obsidian plant small amounts in their sheltered places, protected by the existing social arrangement, o have a supply of grain.

    It makes for a nice, fanciful counterfactual History. When I first researched it, I contacted archeologists at two major universities. No, they calmly explained, agriculture developed before cities. Jane was wrong.

    Recent excavations in Göbekli Tepe showed that Jacobs was right. To quote Wikipedia:

    scholars suggest that the Neolithic revolution, in particular the beginnings of grain cultivation (i.e. not animal husbandry) took place here. Schmidt believed, as others do, that mobile groups in the area were compelled to cooperate with each other to protect early concentrations of wild cereals from wild animals (herds of gazelles and wild donkeys). Wild cereals may have been used for sustenance more intensively than before and were perhaps deliberately cultivated. This would have led to early social organization of various groups in the area of Göbekli Tepe. Thus, according to Schmidt, the Neolithic did not begin on a small scale in the form of individual instances of garden cultivation, but developed rapidly in the form of “a large-scale social organization”.[38]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @Anonymous
    It's going to be awhile before people recognize this, but 1981 and 1992 were major inflection points. Before the early 1980s we weren't even in debt, relatively speaking.

    Granted, for America, the Great Inflection was Hart-Celler, and most people don't even know about that.

    Shortly after the revised edition of Stephen J. Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man” came out, a journal published a peer-reviewed meta review of the book that consisted of excerpts and commentary of every review in a science journal as well as selected reviews in mainstream publications, with the author’s commentary.

    Excuse me – you would not remember which Journal that was? I’d be interested in the article you mention.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Whoever
    I don't think this is the article referred to, but it's an interesting critique of Gould:

    The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias

    Samuel George Morton, in the hands of Stephen Jay Gould, has served for 30 years as a textbook example of scientific misconduct.
    The Morton case was used by Gould as the main support for his contention that “unconscious or dimly perceived finagling is probably endemic in science, since scientists are human beings rooted in cultural contexts, not automatons directed toward external truth.”
    This view has since achieved substantial popularity in “science studies." But our results falsify Gould's hypothesis that Morton manipulated his data to conform with his
    a priori views.
    The data on cranial capacity gathered by Morton are generally reliable, and he reported them fully. Overall, we find that Morton's initial reputation as the objectivist of his era was well-deserved.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Yeah right.

    Hunting mammoths was just sooo safe and easy.

    Look at the Lascaux daubings to see exactly what sort of game ancient Europeans went after.

    “the Lascaux daubings”

    Not meaning to be nasty; but the paintings at Lascaux are masterpieces, not daubings. I’ve always wondered where the practice pieces are, there should be many more of them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Art Deco says:
    @J.Ross
    J-school writers are the clearest answer to the faith that universities can design a course for any occupation. When confronted with a new writer I look into what else he's done. Heather MacDonald might be the best introductory-conservative writer, she's a better journalist than a lot of "real" journalists, and she's a lawyer by training. There used to be a sense (it seems to me) that the training to be a great writer was heavily phronetic, with Hemingway and Cummings driving military ambulances, or Jack London working punishing jobs. Even Lovecraft had a good grasp of hard sciences. So you go out into the world to prove yourself in some other field, and your experiences buy you the right to be a writer, and give you perspectives you will never stumble across in a post-grad library.
    If you look at journalism or "creative writing" or academic publications and events concerned with writing, you're looking more often than not at dutiful tuition-payers who "workshop" and "self-examine" when they should've been skinning their knees.
    There is a Native American myth that as you arrive in the afterlife you are greeted by a wrinkled norn who will eat your scars. If you have no scars, she will eat your eyes. I would feel better about j-schools if they couldn't go past the master's level and had that myth inscribed over their doors.

    I think H.L. Mencken landed a newspaper job at around age 18 and remained employed in journalism for the next 50 years. James Kilgallen I think was also a newspaperman for nearly his entire worklife. Mencken was a contemporary of Jack London and Kilgallen the next set of cohorts down.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Hail

    Horgan graduated from the Columbia University School of Journalism in 1983.
     
    He was at Columbia with Barack Obama.

    Nobody was at Columbia with Barack Obama.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Whatever.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Whoever says: • Website
    @Dieter Kief

    Shortly after the revised edition of Stephen J. Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man” came out, a journal published a peer-reviewed meta review of the book that consisted of excerpts and commentary of every review in a science journal as well as selected reviews in mainstream publications, with the author’s commentary.
     
    Excuse me - you would not remember which Journal that was? I'd be interested in the article you mention.

    I don’t think this is the article referred to, but it’s an interesting critique of Gould:

    The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias

    Samuel George Morton, in the hands of Stephen Jay Gould, has served for 30 years as a textbook example of scientific misconduct.
    The Morton case was used by Gould as the main support for his contention that “unconscious or dimly perceived finagling is probably endemic in science, since scientists are human beings rooted in cultural contexts, not automatons directed toward external truth.”
    This view has since achieved substantial popularity in “science studies.” But our results falsify Gould’s hypothesis that Morton manipulated his data to conform with his
    a priori views.
    The data on cranial capacity gathered by Morton are generally reliable, and he reported them fully. Overall, we find that Morton’s initial reputation as the objectivist of his era was well-deserved.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Thank you kindly!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  164. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Luke Lea
    "One more thing: KSR on the beginning of economic inequality. pic.twitter.com/9JOjDdGEHg"

    You might like The Adam and Eve Story in its Mesopotamian Context: https://goo.gl/uikvFb

    Just read it, Luke. Very interesting. Did you hear back?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Art Deco says:
    @Old Palo Altan
    Nobody was at Columbia with Barack Obama.

    Whatever.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Forbes says:
    @Thomas

    hunter-gatherer societies were remarkably egalitarian …”
     
    But who would want to live their lives as hunter-gatherers? Obviously early humans did not. And the assumption that people haven't evolved even in the 15,000 years since agriculture seems unlikely.

    In any case, anyone who would think that the hunter-gatherer life for women would have been an egalitarian idyll should either have a child or live with a woman having a child, through the two- or three-year cycle of pregnancy, childbirth, and nursing without the benefit of infant formula or modern medicine, and see if that alters their perspective. The idea that prehistory must have been a breeze for women is an idea that could only arise in a culture in which the basic mechanisms and vagaries of human reproduction have become highly medicalized and, to an increasing number of people, largely obscure.

    The idea that prehistory must have been a breeze for women is an idea that could only arise in a culture in which the basic mechanisms and vagaries of human reproduction have become highly medicalized and, to an increasing number of people, largely obscure.

    Or prehistory as a breeze for men…

    Perhaps this has always been the case, but there’s an awful lot of retconning of history going on lately, ISTM. People that appear to have never studied history/anthropology declaiming on how terrible social conditions are now, and how wonderful they once were before the current age.

    As if equally savage and impoverished is the model of an egalitarian world one should aspire to…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. anonguy says:
    @Anonymous
    It's going to be awhile before people recognize this, but 1981 and 1992 were major inflection points. Before the early 1980s we weren't even in debt, relatively speaking.

    Granted, for America, the Great Inflection was Hart-Celler, and most people don't even know about that.

    It’s going to be awhile before people recognize this, but 1981 and 1992 were major inflection points.

    It is only just the past few years have I begun to appreciate exactly how much the world changed after the end of the Cold War. Seems obvious now, but I guess it took a while for the pattern recognition to fire or something.

    We are now in the first stages of another paradigm breaking epoch enabled largely by social media. It is tearing down barriers between people similar to what done after the end of the Cold War.

    So Globalism, Act I was the open borders, free trade and the internet, about 25 years of that. Now, Globalism Act II is via social media everyone on earth is frictionlessly directly connected and can participate in direct democracy via like buttons, forwarding to friends, etc.

    This is all a good thing for humanity but not for the residuals of the Dark Age (pre 1989) like nations, borders, exclusive societies, toxic masculinity, Strangelovian nightmares, and a whole host of other things.

    I really do believe that human history arcs towards justice and decency. It certainly has in my lifetime and looks to be continuing the trend, if not accelerating it these days.

    Let’s hope, and work to make it happen, that this time our new Belle Epoque isn’t interrupted by the guns of August. I’m optimistic about that, FWIW.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. dfordoom says: • Website

    I really do believe that human history arcs towards justice and decency

    We must have read very different history books!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  169. @Trelane
    Like the Holy Roman Empire which was not holy, nor Roman and not an empire, Scientific American is neither scientific nor American. It's published by some outfit based out of Germany. They may be connected to Rammstein or Kraftwerk, the Green Party, Volkswagen emissions labs, Liederhosen, beer gardens and Merkel's boner but that magazine is not scientific and it sure ain't American.

    SA began the slide into oblivion during the Reagan admin. They pointed out glaring frauds by his policy wonks and their reward has been destruction by the Rethuglicans. The last attempt by SA was a feeble effort to keep LNG tankers out of Boston harbor. It failed, in spite of mountainous evidence, and reich wing vengance was swift and complete. Now the american science and engineering people are helping the SJW freaks devour what little is left. Most of us red-neck white trash used to admire and respect those in academia, now adays, not-so-much.

    Read More
    • Disagree: MEH 0910
    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    The decline of Scientific American had nothing to do with Reagan Republicans. It was purely a SJW takeover. SJW's ruin everything they get their hands on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Anonymous
    It's going to be awhile before people recognize this, but 1981 and 1992 were major inflection points. Before the early 1980s we weren't even in debt, relatively speaking.

    Granted, for America, the Great Inflection was Hart-Celler, and most people don't even know about that.

    What happened in 1981 and 1992?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. MEH 0910 says:

    Horgan has a follow-up column: Do Women Want to Be Oppressed?

    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.”

    HT: Fenster at Uncouth Relections

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  172. MEH 0910 says:
    @black thumb
    SA began the slide into oblivion during the Reagan admin. They pointed out glaring frauds by his policy wonks and their reward has been destruction by the Rethuglicans. The last attempt by SA was a feeble effort to keep LNG tankers out of Boston harbor. It failed, in spite of mountainous evidence, and reich wing vengance was swift and complete. Now the american science and engineering people are helping the SJW freaks devour what little is left. Most of us red-neck white trash used to admire and respect those in academia, now adays, not-so-much.

    The decline of Scientific American had nothing to do with Reagan Republicans. It was purely a SJW takeover. SJW’s ruin everything they get their hands on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. JimB says:

    Scientific American is a shadow of what it was in the 1960s and 1970s. Back then, preeminent scientists would write intriguing articles about the frontiers of physics and bioscience. The best part of the magazine were the figures and captions, which were so crystal clear that you didn’t need to read the article to learn the essential scientific points. Writing a SciAm piece used to be taken very seriously because of the opportunity to reach an incredibly broad audience of science literate citizens. Now SciAm has fallen below the now defunct Omni Magazine in authority and influence. Mostly, the articles are now written by hack reporters and second rate scientists, and editorial standards have taken a deep dive. It has considerably fewer pages than it used to, probably reflecting the diluted and sensationalized content pitched to an 8th grade reading level.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  174. @Anonymous
    Pretty much all magazines are like this now. Scientific American, Natl Geographic, my friggin car magazines even. (Automobile just ran a two-issue, 27-page extended essay on the Mexican border and why borders are wrong.) The mags won't be missed, though once they were wonderful.

    http://www.automobilemag.com/news/2017-ram-power-wagon-southern-border-part-2-nogales-gulf-of-mexico/

    The author runs into a Genuine White Person too:

    "It would be tempting to write him off entirely, but he thoroughly believes the things he’s afraid of. He believes them even if there’s nothing there, and he’s not some insane panhandler. He’s a land owner. A voter."

    The market for this increasingly poor content will finally die with the last synapse keeping the last Boomer out of a nursing home.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Christopher Chantrill
    I thought the Big Thing for hunter-gatherer societies was the Dawn Raid or the Massacre. Kill all the men and do the Rape of the Sabine Women on the women.

    But I must have missed something.

    Also, in War Before Civilization, if the number of men in a tribe got too low the tribe would dissolve and the women would be distributed into the neighboring tribes who would take over the old tribe's territory. I wonder what the social status of these distributed women would be.

    But don't mind me, I'm a racist, sexist, homophobe.

    “I wonder what the social status of these distributed women would be.”

    Probably depended on how interested the Alpha was in them.

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

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?