Hunting Women of hunter-gatherer societies

[Stephen Palmer]

... why these beliefs persist despite generations of teaching otherwise, all that is mysterious to me. I don't think progressivism is an adequate explanation. I don't think clumsy teaching accounts for it. But I observe it, semester after semester. But I do understand aspects of the phenomenon.

Because human beings use a mental model of reality, they build up a framework of beliefs about the world. That framework is critical for survival. It requires enormous stability for it to be fit for purpose. As a consequence, unbelieving is far more difficult than believing. In social terms, it takes time. The inertia of social "norms" is huge. So it takes a lot of time to progress from them.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

As a consequence, unbelieving is far more difficult than believing.

The mental model probably works much the same way an addictive drug does. Most people are born right into the model. It relies on parallel processing for reinforcement, which makes it difficult to realize that each routine is the same process even though it uses different components and looks different. Even if one is abandoned, and starting on the outside, the pull brings most people voluntarily within it grasp. It maintains stability, offers desirable rewards, but is hard to quit because it is an addiction. This could explain why only individuals quit believing in the core message and receive no support on the way to other beliefs. Even then, without a great deal of research, there is no guarantee that the new set of beliefs is not some variation of the original model.

 

[Swank]

The mental model probably works much the same way an addictive drug does. Most people are born right into the model. It relies on parallel processing for reinforcement, which makes it difficult to realize that each routine is the same process even though it uses different components and looks different. Even if one is abandoned, and starting on the outside, the pull brings most people voluntarily within it grasp. It maintains stability, offers desirable rewards, but is hard to quit because it is an addiction. This could explain why only individuals quit believing in the core message and receive no support on the way to other beliefs. Even then, without a great deal of research, there is no guarantee that the new set of beliefs is not some variation of the original model.

Individuals can change their beliefs rapidly. The inertia of belief in a society comes down to communication; how rapidly can a convincing new paradigm be shared in a convincing way. It's always slow because the exposure is so small.

 

[paranoid marvin]

It can depend on the individual and what exactly it is that they are being asked to change their viewpoint on. Show some people concrete evidence that their beliefs are wrong, and it will make their belief even stronger. Belief in anything is a question of faith. You believe what your parents, your teacher or your best friend tells you because you have faith in them.

 

[sknox]

If it were just a matter of inheriting belief systems, then we would not see such persistence in the face of better education, better communication. The belief that education can "fix" superstitions persists despite much evidence to the contrary. Why do people continue to believe, for example, that feudalism was a real historical system? Or that kings were all-powerful? Or that popes told people what to believe and so people believed it? None of that holds up to scrutiny. All of it has been countered by generations of historians earnestly teaching a more nuanced view of the world. Heck, why, for that matter, is there generation after generation of flat-earthers? There's no evidence at all that education somehow brings a society around to a better understanding.

It's a complex and fascinating topic. I came to it via books about medieval heresies, which showed how complicated were those beliefs, and the attempts to change them. Later I was reading books about social change in the countryside in the early modern era, which always dealt with superstitions--the more modern, science-based parallel to medieval heresy.

But I see we've wandered far from hunter-gatherer societies, so for myself I shall stop there. Fight thread pollution! <g>

 

[Robert Zwilling]

If it were just a matter of inheriting belief systems, then we would not see such persistence in the face of better education, better communication. The belief that education can "fix" superstitions persists despite much evidence to the contrary.

Education system, communication system has nothing to do with what is being taught or communicated. All the different beliefs and notions are coming from the same basic place. The stuff that can be changed overnight is basically useless in making real changes as to how things are done. It just becomes a different way of achieving the same end result.

If modern day hunter-gather societies can still assign roles by ability and not by gender stereotypes and they don't have all the wonderful educational opportunities and great communication, then perhaps it is the wonderful educational opportunities and great communication that is causing the rush to judgement by gender type and not by ability.

You can say that the education system is informing people as to what's right but when it is mixed in with all kinds of other "facts" the message is heard but not put into practice. Money talks and does a whole lot more. If the education system can't practice equal pay then they need to put their money where their mouth is if they want people to pay attention to what they are saying.

 

[Swank]

The stuff that can be changed overnight is basically useless in making real changes as to how things are done.

I'm not following you. It took virtually no time between the production of the first Model T and the widespread adoption of cars. People, en masse, can adjust to rather large changes in no time at all.

People have inaccurate beliefs about history because it doesn't really matter if they get it wrong.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

I'm not sure how cars enter into assignment by ability but the widespread adoption of cars happened simply because there was already an extensive transportation system, both person and commercial, in place, and cars only served as a practical upgrade. Combustion engines simply replaced horses which caused an upgrade in the blacksmith shops, stables, supply services for horses and accessories, factories that made saddles, buggies, and wagons.

It doesn't matter what "facts" one uses to arrive at personal beliefs, but it does matter a great deal how the personal beliefs control personal actions.

 

[Swank]

I'm not sure how cars enter into assignment by ability but the widespread adoption of cars happened simply because there was already an extensive transportation system, both person and commercial, in place, and cars only served as a practical upgrade. Combustion engines simply replaced horses which caused an upgrade in the blacksmith shops, stables, supply services for horses and accessories, factories that made saddles, buggies, and wagons.

It doesn't matter what "facts" one uses to arrive at personal beliefs, but it does matter a great deal how the personal beliefs control personal actions.

The point is that people accept major changes - even ones that are radical or dangerous - if the benefits to doing so are pretty obvious.

The benefits of believing new things about the middle ages are pretty much nil. People do not need to upgrade their mental trivia database to succeed in life, so I don't think it requires cognitive theories to explain why people repeat the same old dumb stuff. They repeat that stuff because they are trying to interact on some topic even though they aren't really equipped to. And that's the real story - people bend over backwards to be part of the social order.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

It doesn't matter what "facts" one uses to arrive at personal beliefs, but it does matter a great deal how the personal beliefs control personal actions.

The point is that people accept major changes - even ones that are radical or dangerous - if the benefits to doing so are pretty obvious.

Nobody is born with any belief system at all. Where does a person learn vague generalizations about the middle ages that are known to scholars to be incorrect? Are parents sitting their children down to discuss feudalism? Maybe some parents.

The formal education system is the source of a significant amount of generalized knowledge for most people. Popular entertainment is as well.

So there are basic choices that can be made regarding educating each new generation. And, the system has proven to work in a lot of cases. In the last century a lot of new basic understanding of the world around us has been generally understood and accepted:
Some radical new ideas include: The periodic table of chemistry, the age of dinosaurs, the age of the universe, Continental Drift, Plate tectonics, human genetics, DNA, dinosaurs' relationship with birds, and we could go on and on...

The odd question is how do these false ideas get transmitted from one generation to the next and how can that chain be broken and replaced with something better.

 

[paranoid marvin]

History covers a massive range of time and a massive number of events in those times. History lessons cover a mere handful of subjects, and at a secondary level of education only skims the subject. Higher levels of education will cover the subject in much greater depth but only focus on maybe two or three topics or dates.

Most of what most people know about history is based on tv, film, fictional novels and assumptions of historical behaviour based on contemporary attitudes and values.

The thing with history is that even with the same pieces of evidence, two qualified historians can come up with entirely different viewpoints. History is not an exact science, so when some people disagree with an accepted 'fact', they aren't refuting that 2+2=4.

 

[Brian G Turner]

This seems relevant, about how stick throwers (atlatl's) equalized hunting opportunities among the sexes:

Atlatl weapon use by prehistoric females equalized the division of labor while hunting, experimental study shows

A new study led by archaeologist Michelle Bebber, Ph.D., an assistant professor in Kent State University's Department of Anthropology, has demonstrated that the atlatl (i.e., spear thrower) functions as an "equalizer," a finding which supports women's potential active role as prehistoric hunters.

phys.org

 

[Robert Zwilling]

"Often males became frustrated because they were trying too hard and attempting to use their strength to launch the darts," Bebber said. Even today, the misunderstandings continue, funny how it works out. It's a common misunderstanding that the more power that can be applied, the easier it is to overcome resistance or complete a simple task.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Because human beings use a mental model of reality, they build up a framework of beliefs about the world. That framework is critical for survival. It requires enormous stability for it to be fit for purpose. As a consequence, unbelieving is far more difficult than believing. In social terms, it takes time. The inertia of social "norms" is huge. So it takes a lot of time to progress from them.

It's the way we humans think. We always use generalisations. Take language. Every single word in language is either a tag: "John" or a generalisation: "man". A tag doesn't tell you anything about its object; you need more. A generalisation can be true if used carefully: "All humans are mortal." But since we can never have complete knowledge of particular and contingent realities, generalisations about them tend to go wrong: "In hunter-gather groups all men hunt and all women gather."

Most of our generalisations are given to us by other people when we're at an impressionable age and don't question our elders. If we're smart we spend our adult lives unlearning a lot of things we originally took for granted. We just need to be careful about unlearning the things that happen to be true.

It isn't all about belief; some things you can know for certain, but to know something for certain usually means doing a deep dive: studying the topic in detail, verifying the evidence and checking the sources. Most of us don't have the time or qualifications for that. Which leaves the option of either not knowing or trusting somebody who declares himself an authority on the topic. Meself, I go with not knowing.

And don't forget the human propensity for sucking certitudes out of one's right thumb. Especially when imagination or emotion are involved.

 

[Parson]

I wonder where the ancient sling enters into this discussion. A sling would be possible very, very, early. If you can do leather working you can make a functional sling, and it would seem to me that there would not often be any kind of archelogical evidence left from using a sling.

More importantly to this discussion a sling would also be a great equalizer of arm strength, the male strength advantage would be seroiusly shortened because speed and technique are the most critical factors in slinging.

**In doing some research about David's sling I discovered that a 3 oz rock (at least I believe it was 85 grams/3 oz.) thrown by a trained slinger would have the hitting power of a .45 pistol up to several meters. Therefore it is/was a serious ranged weapon in spite of its usual "toy" status.

 

[Montero]

Have you seen the YouTube video which also measures the speed the sling shot goes past?

Not just leather, also rope.

 

[Swank]

**In doing some research about David's sling I discovered that a 3 oz rock (at least I believe it was 85 grams/3 oz.) thrown by a trained slinger would have the hitting power of a .45 pistol up to several meters. Therefore it is/was a serious ranged weapon in spite of its usual "toy" status.

A soccer ball traveling 21 mph also has the power of a .45. Which is why it is a kid-safe alternative for home defense.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Interesting to see this issue raised in another article, especially:

Challenging prehistoric gender roles: Research finds that women were hunters, too

It's a familiar story to many of us: In prehistoric times, men were hunters and women were gatherers. Women were not physically capable of hunting because their anatomy was different from men. And because men were hunters, they drove human evolution.

phys.org

The team also examined the question of whether anatomical and physiological differences between men and women prevented women from hunting. They found that men have an advantage over women in activities requiring speed and power, such as sprinting and throwing, but that women have an advantage over men in activities requiring endurance, such as running. Both sets of activities were essential to hunting in ancient times.

The team highlighted the role of the hormone estrogen, which is more prominent in women than men, as a key component in conferring that advantage. Estrogen can increase fat metabolism, which gives muscles a longer-lasting energy source and can regulate muscle breakdown, preventing muscles from wearing down.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

From the article. Its not even new news.

"There were women who were publishing about this in the '70s, '80s and '90s, but their work kept getting relegated to, "Oh, that's a feminist critique or a feminist approach,'" Lacy said. "This was before any of the work on genetics and a lot of the work on physiology and the role of estrogen had come out. We wanted to both lift back up the arguments that they had already made and add to it all the new stuff."

Apparently male editors have difficulty foraging through data that is collected by women. The parameters of what qualifies as reliable data needs to be changed. This is probably how AI will kill us, feeding us data that is not so good for our well being.

 

[Montero]

@Brian G Turner That is fascinating on estrogen and endurance.