326
The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong
(www.scientificamerican.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
326 points (87.7% liked)
science
14885 readers
319 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.
2024-11-11
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sigh, taking such claims at face value and not looking into how the underlying data was obtained is how we end up with so many successfully published but false scientific papers.
The paper referenced here is https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287101
The cultures 'surveyed' are
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287101.t001
Notice any uncontacted peoples missing from those data points? Here's a quick list of them from Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples
Immediately I can tell you the Sentinelese, Awa, Toromona, Nukak, Tagaeri and the Taromenanepeople are not represented here. It's almost like the societies selected for this paper weren't a complete picture.
I wonder why that would be.... surely not to conform to any biases of the authors.
You think they should have surveyed the uncontacted people?
It’s right there in the link I provided, so yes, because infrequent contact and observation is possible.
You explicitly mentioned the Sentinelese. Exactly how would you go about this infrequent contact and observation with them?
In any case, let's assume that hunting is exclusively performed by males in all of those peoples. How much would that change the statistic and the overall conclusion? 79% would be 72%
We have these things called binoculars, telescopes, cameras and drones. All of which are able to observe subjects from a safe distance.
I suspect that the number would be around a 50% split, what would then be interesting is determining which group has a better diet and survival rate to determine which tactic is superior.
I suspect not. To get to 50%, they would need to study an additional 37 societies, and every single one would have to have only males doing the hunting.
We're in luck, there are more than enough to bring the sample size to a reasonable quantity.
You would need to be in luck. Let's assume that they studied all 200 uncontacted tribes. To bring the overall rate to 50%, you would need 119 out of the 200 to be exclusively males hunting - 60% of those societies. The researchers studied 63 societies and found that 20% of them were exclusively males hunting.
But what's the point anyway? The hypothesis is that males evolved to be bigger for hunting, even 50% of societies where women hunt is enough to make it implausible. In those societies, women are hunting in spite of their apparent size disadvantage.
I think you should ask yourself whether size is actually important for hunting. We don't wrestle our prey. Size doesn't matter if you're bringing down monkeys from the trees with a bow and arrow, and size doesn't matter if you're trying to bring down a mammoth.
Size matters in all these cases. To your point, size matters in long distance running, which is the crux of the articles message.
If you think size doesn't matter when you're bow hunting, you probably haven't taught someone with a significant size difference how to draw a bow.
The top of this comment thread is a person claiming that men do all the hunting in every primitive society, not just hunting based on long distance running.
You came into the thread to criticise a paper that showed that women hunt in 50 different societies around the world. Even your estimate of 50% is plenty enough examples to debunk the "all the hunting" claim.
Women are perfectly capable of drawing a bow that is suitable to hunt monkeys, rabbits, squirrels, small birds, etc. Accuracy is more important than power.
If your strategy for hunting mammoths involves your physical strength, you're gonna have a bad time.
Binoculars, telescopes and cameras will tell you little about what islanders are doing inside the forest where they hunt if you are using them from the ocean. Drones flying over Sentinel Island would violate Indian law and whoever did it would be in huge trouble. Their data would likely be disregarded due to the ethical issues.
On top of that, if they heard a drone coming, they might just change what they normally do.
Like these people. Hunting becomes less of an issue suddenly when there's a flying threat.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/brazil/2049750/Uncontacted-Amazonian-tribe-photographed.html
I look forward to reading your study.
Not having the time or funding to perform my own study does not invalidate my criticism that the authors used an incomplete and flawed data set.
So there are tribes with both dynamics, maybe more one than the other?. We can also look at things like, say, competitive records between "sexes" (it's a spectrum, so the binary divide is weird to begin with, but I digress). Men run on average like 30 seconds faster on the mile than women in societies with clear disadvantages to women's training.
Is this actually significant enough to exclude women? I fail to see how it could be for a role that requires a multitude of skills.
Society's seem to have stratified based on sex to "protect" women, and maybe a lot of women even prefer it. The issue is when we use some societal preferences to override the individual and prescribe roles before the individual can even develop their own preference (men and enbies included).
What I'm seeing are some societies seem to have figured that out well enough, others are more oppressive.
I am concerned only with the factuality of the data presented and have zero interest in cultural implications and any inferences that may be drawn from them.
You do you. Data alone is pretty useless to me.
Conclusions drawn from incomplete or misleading data are worthless to everyone
If you think my argument is missing something, by all means, it would be useful to say that rather than passive aggressive.
I can’t believe so many people upvoted this comment. Do they just assume because there are lots of words and you referenced the original paper that this is a good critique? But I guess a lot of people just turn off their brain when they feel cognitive dissonance.
Do you know what a survey is? It’s not meant to be comprehensive, it’s supposed to be representative. Furthermore, it is based on existing ethnographic data, so it’s obviously not going to include data on tribes that are currently uncontacted, because there is little or none. The reasons why are obvious but since you don’t seem to understand, we can spell it out.
Conducting anthropological research on these tribes typically involves going to the tribe and living with, observing, and interviewing them for an extended period to fully understand their culture and way of life. This is not advisable with uncontacted tribes because it is dangerous for researchers and dangerous for the tribe which may lack exposure to endemic diseases in the rest of the world. It’s simply not done and I guarantee no ethics board would approve such research today.
Furthermore, it’s hilarious to suggest that the authors deliberately omitted cultures we know little about to reinforce their own agenda. How would they even know which tribes the exclude? And, as others have pointed out, even if all of these uncontacted tribes had only male hunting (a fact which would be highly surprising), it would barely change the conclusion here that in most forager societies, women engage in hunting.
Overall, this seems a very bad-faith critique. It’s good to delve into the science and examine whether a given paper was conducted in a sound way, but you need to approach it with an open mind, not just seek to undermine it with the simplest and most superficial criticism you can conceive of that supports your pre-existing position.