While we don’t dispute that these patterns play out in many parts of the modern world, we don’t see them as elements of human nature so much as adaptations to social conditions—many of which were introduced with the advent of agriculture no more than ten thousand years ago. These behaviors and predilections are not biologically programmed traits of our species; they are evidence of the human brain’s flexibility and the creative potential of community.
Talking about the standard narrative of why people act like they do.
I don't agree with all the conclusions, but the explanation of why various current narratives are wrong makes a lot of sense.
We are often much too certain. You can tell I've been reading again. ;)
4 comments:
The author is claiming that pre-agricultural humans formed polyamorous groups and not pair-bonds. From a scientific perspective, that's an extraordinary claim, hence requires some serious evidence to back it up. The fact that this claim is being argued in the popular press and not in a peer-reviewed journal is a huge red flag.
I think their claim is interesting, and once they can back it with some research that is fit to make it into an anthropology journal, then it I could see reading about it. But so much of this "modern humans do X, therefore primitive humans must have done Y" is just a bunch of armchair speculation. And all the hyperbole in the article you linked is really setting off my bullsh*t-o-meter...
Hanson, I agree with your criticism of the author and his work, but the excerpt, that many of our predilections and behaviors are not biologically programmed, but instead are socially created traits, that was useful.
I suspect you consider that to be the basis of religion (socially created rather than an innate part of the human soul) ;)
The author makes good arguments that But so much of this "modern humans do X, therefore primitive humans must have done Y" is just a bunch of armchair speculation. -- before going off on his own speculations with even less foundation.
But the point that much of what is going on is just "just a bunch of armchair speculation" is a good one.
Re: that many of our predilections and behaviors are not biologically programmed, but instead are socially created traits, that was useful.
That's true, but it gets into a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. After all, humans create human culture and society. It's not a simple question at all. It takes a lot of work to figure out which traits really are common to all human societies (language, for example), and which things we assume are universal (given our biases from our own time and culture), but aren't.
Your post made me curious, so I did a little online search for info about this book. From some of the excerpts from the book, it would appear that not only is the author not an anthropologist or primatologist, but didn't even do some simple background reading about what is known about hunter-gatherer societies or ape behavior. Again, I think it would be interesting if he could make a real, evidence-based case to show that pre-agricultural humans lived in polyamorous groups, but it looks like the actual science content of this particular book is very nearly zero.
I'd say the actual science based content of the book probably reaches a negative number -- which is why I did not link to the book on Amazon or encourage people to pick it up at their library.
But I liked the point made, even if I did not like the book.
and which things we assume are universal (given our biases from our own time and culture), but aren't.
Very well said. I need to be careful or I'll be agreeing with you too much ;)
Post a Comment