> I think we have the explanation to human modesty right here: We are all betas now. No, no, no, no, no! Humans are no more chimps than we are bonobos, and bon

> I think we have the explanation to human modesty right here: We are all betas now. No, no, no, no, no! Humans are no more chimps than we are bonobos, and bonobos have a huge amount of sex, with no "alpha male". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sociosexual_behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sociosexual_behaviour You cannot let the behavior of chimps inform your understanding of humans without also looking at the behavior of bonobos! > Even very primitive cultures, who don’t even have clothing The term "primitive culture" raises a red flag. "The term primitive culture was used in older anthropology texts and discussions of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth century by European explorers and anthropologists to describe indigenous societies, particularly those of North, South America, the Caribbean, Africa, and Oceania. While the term is no longer used due to its inherent racist and ethnocentric undertones, anthropologists nonetheless recognize these groups of people in their categorization of the differing forms of human societies." - https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Primitive_culture https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Primitive_culture > whose hypothesis that humans became more and more uptight as civilization progressed resulted in a bestseller. Again, no! Not only does "civilization" carry with it ethnocentric undertones, but the rise of Freikörperkultur, especially in post-War East Germany, does not mean civilization was regressing. Quoting Wikipdia, "It had ties to the workers' movement and became a symbol for people and families to escape a repressive state". That ends up giving a very different "rational view."