It was the worst of times, it was the worst of times ...

If you doubt the power of this delusion, ask any trailer-park redneck if he'd rather be living in France.

I don't even know where to start with this.

Seems accurate to me.

You can never go back... everything pre-wipe was awful

phil_herup: You can never go back... everything pre-wipe was awful

wat

so vote republican: If you doubt the power of this delusion, ask any trailer-park redneck if he'd rather be living in France.

I don't even know where to start with this.

Glad I wasn't the only one.

max power: Glad I wasn't the only one.

What's wrong with it?

paranoyd: What's wrong with it?

Nothing is wrong with it. It just seemed stark and perhaps a bit ironic considering the text it followed.

Yeah comparing "tenured intellectuals" (Envy!) to trailer-park redneck "patriotism" seems kinda anti-intellectual if you ask me.

fatsean: Yeah comparing "tenured intellectuals" (Envy!) to trailer-park redneck "patriotism" seems kinda anti-intellectual if you ask me.


tenures intellectuals do not exist in the real world, but rather in the bubble of academia where the recession never hit.

I've read Pinker book. He makes a pretty solid argument. As for this article: "tend to be far less conflictive when living as nomadic hunter-gatherers, with little to plunder or defend."

Really? That's sounds very much along the lines of the generally erroneous idea of the "noble savage". Much like the idiots who proclaim a paleo-diet based on a completely nonsensical romanticism of paleolithic man, I'm going to submit this is romanticised idealism.

In fact research points to the proclivity to war predating homo sapiens.

from here

Hunter-gatherer scholarship has largely overlooked the importance of war, partly because of long-standing assumptions that warfare is a relatively recent emergence in human history and that hunter-gatherers lead a peaceful life. There is increasing evidence, however, that these assumptions are misplaced and that New Guinea’s foragers may more accurately represent the hunter-gatherer past. Recent primate research finds that chimpanzees practice a form of lethal aggression against neighbors that has striking similarities to ambush in human society. This suggests that organized deadly violence may antedate the human-chimpanzee split, some 5 to 7 million years ago, and therefore may have characterized the whole of human prehistory. This conclusion is corroborated by historical research on reputedly peaceful hunter-gatherer groups such as the !Kung, Inuit, and Australian Aborigines, which suggests that war was considerably more prevalent among these peoples than previously supposed.

Also

In her study, Myths About Hunter-Gatherers, Carol Ember (1978) found that warfare was practiced by 88% of the modern hunter-gatherer societies surveyed, even when excluding equestrian hunters and societies dependent on fishing. The three exceptions are instructive, suggesting that hunter-gatherers did engage in warfare when possible. All three had population densities so low that war was not practical: 1) as mentioned earlier, the Kung bushmen have been decimated over time, but have oral history accounts of warfare in earlier times when they were more numerous; 2) the Yahgan lived under extreme conditions at the southern tip of the Americas and; and 3) the Pekangekun live under similar conditions at the northern extremes of the Americas.

max power: Nothing is wrong with it. It just seemed stark and perhaps a bit ironic considering the text it followed.

Ah. I literally just finished the book this was excerpted from and he definitely has a snarky tonality to his writing that I just got used to. He even mentions in the notes that he should have toned it down. So I see your point.

burntman: All three had population densities so low that war was not practical

That's kind of telling, population densities have been very low for the majority of homo sapien's existence.

fatsean: Yeah comparing "tenured intellectuals" (Envy!) to trailer-park redneck "patriotism" seems kinda anti-intellectual if you ask me.

Specially since his book on prehistoric sexual practice is dependant on the "noble savage" and has been criticised for portraying a super idealised prehistory that did not really exist.

here's a pretty solid debunking of his book from the Journal of Evolutionary Psychology pointing out where he's wrong. (it's a gary glitter, srry)

If Pinkers the red-neck who doesn't want to go to France, well then, in the spirit of the analogy, he's the 17 year old weeabo idealising a fantastical Japan that doesn't exist anywhere other than his anime-addled mind.

burntman: Specially since his book on prehistoric sexual practice is dependant on the "noble savage" and has been criticised for portraying a super idealised prehistory that did not really exist.

here's a pretty solid debunking of his book from the Journal of Evolutionary Psychology pointing out where he's wrong. (it's a gary glitter, srry)

If Pinkers the red-neck who doesn't want to go to France, well then, in the spirit of the analogy, he's the 17 year old weeabo idealising a fantastical Japan that doesn't exist anywhere other than his anime-addled mind.

Well, I liked it and found it interesting. I'll read the pdf more, but so far it sounds sour-grapish.

paranoyd: Well, I liked it and found it interesting. I'll read the pdf more, but so far it sounds sour-grapish.

Why sour-grapeish? Its pointing out the errors in the book and providing references. The book was a pop-anthro book, and if it's presenting factually incorrect material to support a pop-hypothesis, then I don't think it's terribly wrong for them to point this out. Much like Dawkins has to do with the creationists.

As they put it very well in that review:

The public—in many cases unfortunately, but understandably—is largely educated in science through popular expositions such as this, and therefore it is crucial that researchers in the pertinent fields not ignore such publications or shirk from weighing in on the issues.

burntman: Why sour-grapeish? Its pointing out the errors in the book and providing references. The book was a pop-anthro book, and if it's presenting factually incorrect material to support a pop-hypothesis, then I don't think it's terribly wrong for them to point this out. Much like Dawkins has to do with the creationists.

As they put it very well in that review:

The public—in many cases unfortunately, but understandably—is largely educated in science through popular expositions such as this, and therefore it is crucial that researchers in the pertinent fields not ignore such publications or shirk from weighing in on the issues.

You don't think that sounds a bit like "we're real scientists, so if we don't say it it's not worth hearing"?

paranoyd: You don't think that sounds a bit like "we're real scientists, so if we don't say it it's not worth hearing"?

No. I'd put it more as "What you're saying is not based on science. Here is the science"

burntman: No. I'd put it more as "What you're saying is not based on science. Here is the science"

But it is based on science. They have extensive footnotes and a bibliography of all the things they quote and cite. They also urge the reader to investigate the evidence for themselves. And they ensure the reader knows the "Standard narrative" that they are disagreeing with. It may not be an academic work but it never claims to be anything more than an alternate conjecture of the same evidence available to all. And they can cite people who agree with them. The review even says it's his impression of the bias involved in the book - a bias they don't shirk from - with his own bias.

I'm not saying they are 100% correct, or that the reviewer is 100% wrong, but there's just as much at stake for the reviewer to be right as there is for Ryan et al to be right.

paranoyd: But it is based on science. They have extensive footnotes and a bibliography of all the things they quote and cite. They also urge the reader to investigate the evidence for themselves. And they ensure the reader knows the "Standard narrative" that they are disagreeing with. It may not be an academic work but it never claims to be anything more than an alternate conjecture of the same evidence available to all. And they can cite people who agree with them. The review even says it's his impression of the bias involved in the book - a bias they don't shirk from - with his own bias.

I'm not saying they are 100% correct, or that the reviewer is 100% wrong, but there's just as much at stake for the reviewer to be right as there is for Ryan et al to be right.

But that's why the review and the criticism. If what they are proposing is not supported by the science then it is indeed right that the scientists in the relevant fields criticise the work accordingly. They have presented a book that makes some rather big claims as to human sexuality, those claims should be held to scrutiny, same as any other. The fact that it's not an academic work, does not exempt it from being criticised where it is wrong.

burntman: But that's why the review and the criticism. If what they are proposing is not supported by the science then it is indeed right that the scientists in the relevant fields criticise the work accordingly. They have presented a book that makes some rather big claims as to human sexuality, those claims should be held to scrutiny, same as any other. The fact that it's not an academic work, does not exempt it from being criticised where it is wrong.

I know. I'm being a bit pig-headed about it right now because I liked it so much, and it did answer some interesting questions for me - although less on the evolutionary front than on the physcological one. Since they are psychologists by nature, that makes sense.

paranoyd: I know. I'm being a bit pig-headed about it right now because I liked it so much, and it did answer some interesting questions for me - although less on the evolutionary front than on the physcological one. Since they are psychologists by nature, that makes sense.

The Sex at Dawn book is all about evolutionary psychology, or rather directly criticising current evolutionary psychology. I really think this is one of those cases where extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence.

paranoyd: You don't think that sounds a bit like "we're real scientists, so if we don't say it it's not worth hearing"?

I thought it sounded more like "just because Sex at Dawn wasn't published in a scientific journal doesn't mean we should ignore it".

max power: Glad I wasn't the only one.

That's why I love America!

sabine: I thought it sounded more like "just because Sex at Dawn wasn't published in a scientific journal doesn't mean we should ignore it".

Alright. Like I said, I liked the book so I'm being overly-protective of it, I guess.

Give me a little space and time and I'll think it's crap like a real scientist. ;)

/the winking means I'm trying to make a joke ;)

paranoyd: I liked the book so I'm being overly-protective of it, I guess.

That's cool. I'm probably similarly biased against anything that smells of the "noble savage", just because that concept is pushed so heavily in museums. Over Christmas, we visited the Santa Fe Museum of Indian Art and Culture, which was chock full of examples. Across the mall, the International Folk Art Museum made up for it by being seriously awesome.