4 ms·

As someone who spends a lot of time closely with dogs, and recently raised a little of 6 spaniels - dogs "talk" via their facial expressions and can make sounds

As someone who spends a lot of time closely with dogs, and recently raised a little of 6 spaniels - dogs "talk" via their facial expressions and can make sounds beyond just barks. My pet theory is that women bonded with dogs first through an ability to have a mutual understanding with non-verbal communication, and we most likely observed them and could "talk" to them in their own ways - something that has been lost as we turned dogs from inter-species partners to enslaved commodities. We're slowly starting to rediscover it.

ido 3y ago
Why women specifically? Or did you mean humans?
- hnbad 3y ago
  Probably extrapolating from the debunked pseudoscience of "women were gatherers, men were hunters", which fuels 90% of present evopsych nonsense. For those unaware: prehistorical "hunter-gatherer" societies likely did not have strong divisions of labor and there is no evidence to suggest such a universal division across gender lines. Quite the opposite, actually. Turns out when you hunt large mammals in a group, the statistical physical advantages men have don't really matter all that much and women in turn aren't inherently better at child rearing (which historically was a group activity shared by the entire tribe).
  - someuser2345 3y ago
    > Turns out when you hunt large mammals in a group, the statistical physical advantages men have don't really matter all that much Even if women and men are equal in their hunting skill, it would still make evolutionary sense for women not to participate in the hunts. Hunting large mammals is dangerous, and men are more disposable than women. If a tribe loses most of its men, it can still survive since a single man can impregnate multiple women. Whereas if a tribe loses most of its women it is far more likely to die out.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    That isn’t debunked, how ridiculous. It’s true not all men were hunters, but that doesn’t mean that there was an equal share of women among the hunters. They travelled as a group and everyone gathered, but men went out to get the kill.
    - gumby 3y ago
      This is attested in the Neolithic records, I suppose?
      - edgyquant 3y ago
        Anyone making sweeping statements that applies to all of hunter gatherer society is almost certainly wrong about at least a few cultures. We’re talking 1-3 million years worth of human society and cultural evolution.
        gumby 3y ago
        Anthropological studies of (some of the few remaining) contemporary hunter-gatherer societies don't show the presumed division of labor (or several other presumptions either, like pervasive hinger, or the amount of time spent on food collection) written up by 19th century European naturalists.
        hnbad 3y ago
        To be clear: most of the original claims about historical, prehistorical and then-contemporary indigeneous societies that have survived into the Western cultural canon were written by people who were used to extrapolating from their own cultural and social norms to others and judging everything on a scale that favored them and their social hierarchies. This also bled over into other natural sciences, which is for example why Darwin's theory of evolution was so disruptive. Another example is how a lot of national mythologies were invented largely out of thin air in the 17th through 19th centuries, e.g. the Scottish clan system with its strict lineages and tartans. Most of the mythology around kilts is pure fabrication. Even in economics this can be found with the common wisdom that money/currency was preceded by bartering, which we now know to be an oversimplification to the point of being wrong with in-group gift economies apparently having been far more common and bartering being part of diplomacy between separate groups rather than something you'd do with your neighbor. Arguably this tendency even persisted to the point where the myth of an "alpha wolf" arose based on observations of wolves in captivity that was quickly dispelled after actually looking at wolves able to roam in their natural environment. If you want to present the Victorian Age as the pinnacle of human development, of course you'll see the "uncivilised" natives as beneath you in every way and after hunting their prey animals for game and destroying their natural resources claim that starvation is just part of their natural experience rather than something you inflicted on them by taking away their livelihoods. Luckily most fields of study have moved away from this antiquated approach but sadly there's a growing call among certain people to "return to tradition" and dismiss this as "woke" nonsense.
justinclift 3y ago
That sounds weird. Do you think male humans don't communicate non-verbally?

ido 3y ago

Why women specifically? Or did you mean humans?

hnbad 3y ago
Probably extrapolating from the debunked pseudoscience of "women were gatherers, men were hunters", which fuels 90% of present evopsych nonsense. For those unaware: prehistorical "hunter-gatherer" societies likely did not have strong divisions of labor and there is no evidence to suggest such a universal division across gender lines. Quite the opposite, actually. Turns out when you hunt large mammals in a group, the statistical physical advantages men have don't really matter all that much and women in turn aren't inherently better at child rearing (which historically was a group activity shared by the entire tribe).
- someuser2345 3y ago
  > Turns out when you hunt large mammals in a group, the statistical physical advantages men have don't really matter all that much Even if women and men are equal in their hunting skill, it would still make evolutionary sense for women not to participate in the hunts. Hunting large mammals is dangerous, and men are more disposable than women. If a tribe loses most of its men, it can still survive since a single man can impregnate multiple women. Whereas if a tribe loses most of its women it is far more likely to die out.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  That isn’t debunked, how ridiculous. It’s true not all men were hunters, but that doesn’t mean that there was an equal share of women among the hunters. They travelled as a group and everyone gathered, but men went out to get the kill.
  - gumby 3y ago
    This is attested in the Neolithic records, I suppose?
    - edgyquant 3y ago
      Anyone making sweeping statements that applies to all of hunter gatherer society is almost certainly wrong about at least a few cultures. We’re talking 1-3 million years worth of human society and cultural evolution.
      - gumby 3y ago
        Anthropological studies of (some of the few remaining) contemporary hunter-gatherer societies don't show the presumed division of labor (or several other presumptions either, like pervasive hinger, or the amount of time spent on food collection) written up by 19th century European naturalists.
        hnbad 3y ago
        To be clear: most of the original claims about historical, prehistorical and then-contemporary indigeneous societies that have survived into the Western cultural canon were written by people who were used to extrapolating from their own cultural and social norms to others and judging everything on a scale that favored them and their social hierarchies. This also bled over into other natural sciences, which is for example why Darwin's theory of evolution was so disruptive. Another example is how a lot of national mythologies were invented largely out of thin air in the 17th through 19th centuries, e.g. the Scottish clan system with its strict lineages and tartans. Most of the mythology around kilts is pure fabrication. Even in economics this can be found with the common wisdom that money/currency was preceded by bartering, which we now know to be an oversimplification to the point of being wrong with in-group gift economies apparently having been far more common and bartering being part of diplomacy between separate groups rather than something you'd do with your neighbor. Arguably this tendency even persisted to the point where the myth of an "alpha wolf" arose based on observations of wolves in captivity that was quickly dispelled after actually looking at wolves able to roam in their natural environment. If you want to present the Victorian Age as the pinnacle of human development, of course you'll see the "uncivilised" natives as beneath you in every way and after hunting their prey animals for game and destroying their natural resources claim that starvation is just part of their natural experience rather than something you inflicted on them by taking away their livelihoods. Luckily most fields of study have moved away from this antiquated approach but sadly there's a growing call among certain people to "return to tradition" and dismiss this as "woke" nonsense.

justinclift 3y ago

That sounds weird. Do you think male humans don't communicate non-verbally?