It really would be cool to learn some evopsych stuff. However everyone I see some evopsych stuff it is just terrible and the worst quality scholarship. I feel like there ought to be at leat a few things cool to learn there but they are deliberately going out of their way to just try to reinvent scientific rascism.
It really would be cool to learn some evopsych stuff
the reason that homogeneous communities are more altruistic is because a lot of altruistic people tend to be altruistic not only to coracials, but also racial others, in the absence of conflict or propaganda--this makes them less opposed to mixing (which makes the community more homogeneous over time), while nasty people are more opposed to it
the bazinga-brains think everyone's had a 23andme calculator in their head since the neolithic
also if you want example #102971586273562387103897802917065012734982372903856 of mayos not knowing anything outside of the white bubble:
plenty of places in Africa have a monsoonal climate, meaning they get 3-5 months without rain. Basically like a winter but lack of water instead of sun
are you talking about Yakub or something in mainstream anthropology
bc the verdict rn is that the first light skin mutations came from the Middle East and East Asia. Probably also North India and the Americas but that's less well known
there's a difference between light and white skin btw. The latter only started existing 3500 years ago in northern europe
This might be technically true but there's no reason to think it was East Africa. It could have just as easily been South Africa or Central
Going by archaeological samples though, these mutations first became widespread in the Middle East. It's also possible they may have even originated outside of Africa.
Also I'm talking about a select few light skin mutations that lighten the skin tone by large margins and became widespread in the neolithic, when people got less vitamin D from their diets,
There were other ones which were more minor and present in the paleolithic which probably came from Africa, and were held by European hunter gatherers who were pretty dark skinned (but still almost definitely lighter than Africans)
Depending on what you mean by "cool"... most evopsych stuff that makes it out into the greater world is little more than the psych version of "aliens made the great pyramids in Egypt, Stonehendge, and the ziggurauts in various South American countries."
I think a really sticky point is "How do you test this hypothesis?"
Like, if some yolk-head decides to make a statement like, "Rape is actually a good way to spread your genetic material around"... Nobody wants to test that hypothesis that isn't itching for the .
I want to say something like, cultural anthropology, is already doing what the evopsychics are trying for.
the fundamental problem is that psychology doesn't leave a fossil record and so like 99% of evopsych is simply coming up with a theory to support your beliefs, on the wildass assumption that human thoughts and behavior are primarily genetic in nature rather than cultural.
It really would be cool to learn some evopsych stuff. However everyone I see some evopsych stuff it is just terrible and the worst quality scholarship. I feel like there ought to be at leat a few things cool to learn there but they are deliberately going out of their way to just try to reinvent scientific rascism.
the reason that homogeneous communities are more altruistic is because a lot of altruistic people tend to be altruistic not only to coracials, but also racial others, in the absence of conflict or propaganda--this makes them less opposed to mixing (which makes the community more homogeneous over time), while nasty people are more opposed to it
the bazinga-brains think everyone's had a 23andme calculator in their head since the neolithic
also if you want example #102971586273562387103897802917065012734982372903856 of mayos not knowing anything outside of the white bubble:
plenty of places in Africa have a monsoonal climate, meaning they get 3-5 months without rain. Basically like a winter but lack of water instead of sun
deleted by creator
are you talking about Yakub or something in mainstream anthropology
bc the verdict rn is that the first light skin mutations came from the Middle East and East Asia. Probably also North India and the Americas but that's less well known
there's a difference between light and white skin btw. The latter only started existing 3500 years ago in northern europe
deleted by creator
This might be technically true but there's no reason to think it was East Africa. It could have just as easily been South Africa or Central
Going by archaeological samples though, these mutations first became widespread in the Middle East. It's also possible they may have even originated outside of Africa.
Also I'm talking about a select few light skin mutations that lighten the skin tone by large margins and became widespread in the neolithic, when people got less vitamin D from their diets,
There were other ones which were more minor and present in the paleolithic which probably came from Africa, and were held by European hunter gatherers who were pretty dark skinned (but still almost definitely lighter than Africans)
Depending on what you mean by "cool"... most evopsych stuff that makes it out into the greater world is little more than the psych version of "aliens made the great pyramids in Egypt, Stonehendge, and the ziggurauts in various South American countries."
There has to be some real stuff there to study. It can't just be only rascism all the way down you know
I think a really sticky point is "How do you test this hypothesis?"
Like, if some yolk-head decides to make a statement like, "Rape is actually a good way to spread your genetic material around"... Nobody wants to test that hypothesis that isn't itching for the
.
I want to say something like, cultural anthropology, is already doing what the evopsychics are trying for.
the fundamental problem is that psychology doesn't leave a fossil record and so like 99% of evopsych is simply coming up with a theory to support your beliefs, on the wildass assumption that human thoughts and behavior are primarily genetic in nature rather than cultural.