Here's the actual paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01803-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01803-6 It's paywalled, but something g

Here's the actual paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01803-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01803-6 It's paywalled, but something got me through it (there was a brief flash of a banner saying "access to this resource provided by [something I didn't catch]") - YMMV. Is 134 items from 112 widely (both geographically and temporally) distributed sites a large enough sample to draw robust conclusions? Also, my neighbor and I have similar backgrounds and outlooks on life (I'd say we share a "culture"), but we have really different taste in clothes and decor and other physical indicators. This study rests on an assumption that pre-historic people would not express similar personal distinctions. Maybe not, but the authors don't seem to have considered the question. On the other hand, the paper's conclusion (see p 7 - I can't cut and paste on my phone) is (as usual) much narrower than the headline on the popular summary article. It's an interesting paper, and worth a (skeptical, but that's fine) read.