4 ms·

Honest question: do evopsych people have any evidence for the males-as-hunters/females-as-gatherers thing from prehistory? The only argument I've heard was "wel

Honest question: do evopsych people have any evidence for the males-as-hunters/females-as-gatherers thing from prehistory? The only argument I've heard was "well most present-day hunter-gatherer societies are like this" which is incredibly weak (not all such societies are like this, and they also evolved along with modern society and probably weren't frozen in time for 10000 years). So am I missing anything or is this one of those famed inferences to the best explanation evopsych people are known for?

CryptoPunk 6y ago
That's not "incredibly weak" evidence. If all existing hunter gatherers which hunt big game across the globe are like this, and if that applies irrespective of their level of contact with the larger global culture, that points to the cultural trait having ancient origins, from before when the ancestors of today's humans diverged, or the trait being so in tune with basic human physiology that it consistently re-emerges across human populations when they adopt hunter gatherer lifestyles. Either one would predict that prehistoric hunter gatherer groups had a similar division of labor across genders.
disown 6y ago
> Honest question: People who start with "honest question" usually are not being honest. > The only argument I've heard was "well most present-day hunter-gatherer societies are like this" Not most. All of them as far as I know. And that isn't the only argument. It's human physiology. Men are built to fight/hunt/etc. We can swing swords harder, throw spears further, pull bow strings further, run faster, etc. Not to mention our closest kin, the chimps, also have have male hunting parties. So it's highly likely, this structure has been around for millions of years, even before we became humans. > which is incredibly weak How the hell is that weak? It's absolutely conclusive. > (not all such societies are like this, and they also evolved along with modern society and probably weren't frozen in time for 10000 years) Well then find such societies. Go find a hunter-as-female/male-as-gatherer society. Just because you wish it were true doesn't make it so. On the one side, we have a mountain of evidence. On your side, nothing. The hunters in hunter-gatherer societies also served as "warriors" to protect the family/tribe/territory. So a female-as-hunter tribe/society wouldn't last long in the "wild", if they ever existed. Modern weapons make it easy for women to hunt, but even today, it's primarily the males that hunt. Why create a throwaway for this question? That's what I find the most bizarre.
- throwaway47732 6y ago
  >People who start with "honest question" usually are not being honest. I thought I was in fact very honest about my low opinion of evopsych and evopsych people, and didn't try to hide my sentiment behind pretenses of "objectivity". >All of them as far as I know. I mean, even if you didn't bother to google a counterexample (where at least both genders participate in hunting), what do you make of the present article? >It's human physiology. Men are built to fight/hunt/etc. We can swing swords harder, throw spears further, pull bow strings further, run faster, etc. Yep that's evopsych "evidence" alright. It sounds reasonable so it must have been this way for millions of years. Genes? Mechanisms? Evidence of genetic selection on behavior (as opposed to plain old drift)? Accounting for the variation that must have existed across all of mankind during these millions of years? Who needs that, it's just highly likely. And then evopsych people wonder why they're not being taken seriously by actual biologists. >Why create a throwaway for this question? That's what I find the most bizarre. I try to abstain from maintaining a persistent online presence so as to retain a modicum of sanity and attention and this reply is a perfect reminder of why I chose to do it in the first place. Have a nice day and enjoy your new president-elect I guess.

CryptoPunk 6y ago

That's not "incredibly weak" evidence. If all existing hunter gatherers which hunt big game across the globe are like this, and if that applies irrespective of their level of contact with the larger global culture, that points to the cultural trait having ancient origins, from before when the ancestors of today's humans diverged, or the trait being so in tune with basic human physiology that it consistently re-emerges across human populations when they adopt hunter gatherer lifestyles. Either one would predict that prehistoric hunter gatherer groups had a similar division of labor across genders.

disown 6y ago

> Honest question: People who start with "honest question" usually are not being honest. > The only argument I've heard was "well most present-day hunter-gatherer societies are like this" Not most. All of them as far as I know. And that isn't the only argument. It's human physiology. Men are built to fight/hunt/etc. We can swing swords harder, throw spears further, pull bow strings further, run faster, etc. Not to mention our closest kin, the chimps, also have have male hunting parties. So it's highly likely, this structure has been around for millions of years, even before we became humans. > which is incredibly weak How the hell is that weak? It's absolutely conclusive. > (not all such societies are like this, and they also evolved along with modern society and probably weren't frozen in time for 10000 years) Well then find such societies. Go find a hunter-as-female/male-as-gatherer society. Just because you wish it were true doesn't make it so. On the one side, we have a mountain of evidence. On your side, nothing. The hunters in hunter-gatherer societies also served as "warriors" to protect the family/tribe/territory. So a female-as-hunter tribe/society wouldn't last long in the "wild", if they ever existed. Modern weapons make it easy for women to hunt, but even today, it's primarily the males that hunt. Why create a throwaway for this question? That's what I find the most bizarre.

throwaway47732 6y ago
>People who start with "honest question" usually are not being honest. I thought I was in fact very honest about my low opinion of evopsych and evopsych people, and didn't try to hide my sentiment behind pretenses of "objectivity". >All of them as far as I know. I mean, even if you didn't bother to google a counterexample (where at least both genders participate in hunting), what do you make of the present article? >It's human physiology. Men are built to fight/hunt/etc. We can swing swords harder, throw spears further, pull bow strings further, run faster, etc. Yep that's evopsych "evidence" alright. It sounds reasonable so it must have been this way for millions of years. Genes? Mechanisms? Evidence of genetic selection on behavior (as opposed to plain old drift)? Accounting for the variation that must have existed across all of mankind during these millions of years? Who needs that, it's just highly likely. And then evopsych people wonder why they're not being taken seriously by actual biologists. >Why create a throwaway for this question? That's what I find the most bizarre. I try to abstain from maintaining a persistent online presence so as to retain a modicum of sanity and attention and this reply is a perfect reminder of why I chose to do it in the first place. Have a nice day and enjoy your new president-elect I guess.