That's stupid when you have a limited number of hands and a set number of tasks required to survive.

Fragments

violence, particularly structural violence, where all the power is on one side, creates ignorance. If you have the power to hit people over the head whenever you want, you don’t have to trouble yourself too much figuring out what they think is going on, and therefore, generally speaking, you don’t. Hence the sure-fire way to simplify social arrangements, to ignore the incredibly complex play of perspectives, passions, insights, desires, and mutual understandings that human life is really made of, is to make a rule and threaten to attack anyone who breaks it. This is why violence has always been the favored recourse of the stupid: it is the one form of stupidity to which it is almost impossible to come up with an intelligent response. It is also of course the basis of the state.

Unto Others has a section in it that has always stuck with me about division of labor in large groups vs small ones. Members of small groups tend towards being jacks of all trades, and their roles and duties look very similar to one another, and few functional distinctions can be made between them because anyone might have to do anything at any time. Large groups have a lot more specialization of labor within their structure.

It's not specifically a book about humans, more of a dry text about the evolutionary theories surrounding altruism. Humans demonstrate it well, but it's a dynamic that other social animals like ants demonstrate too.

Weird how they call for minorities to always be ready to justify not being purged by eugenics at any given moment, but they will demand a world where their worldview is NEVER challenged. It's correct because they say so, it's only a wacky coincidence that being "redpilled to the harsh truth" just so happens to say that they are super special and deserve extra privileges in society.

Yup, pc article that's gonna be posted on femcentric sites to push a delusional narrative.

Women had far fewer periods? Why? And why do you think they wouldn’t have been as focused on fertility as modern society? It’s literally their biological purpose, as it is for men.

The woman went out hunting with the only source of food for the children attached to her chest... [of course not]

As long as you don't have any shitlings running around, it makes sense for every capable person to be involved.

It’s pretty easy to research your way out of obvious truths. Even if there is just a marginal advantage for male hunters over female, it’s common sense that you wouldn't want women to come because it would lead to people flirting and being distracted. I also don’t think there is a linear relationship where if you add more hunters it increases your success rate, if anything you will reach diminishing returns, so there is no benefit to bringing the whole tribe along

My wife was raised by her grandfather who was born in an igloo in winter 1920. She's Inuit and men being the hunters and women being the gatherers/home keepers (tending children, making and mending clothing, everything not related to hunting) is part of living memory from a stone age culture. Sure women were capable of hunting, fishing and trapping but it was primarily a male responsibility. Again, this is in living memory from a stone age culture not guesswork from anthropologists.

Some of these are not full comments, just the funny parts in those comments.

um sorry sweaty, humanity went to the moon and discovered pronouns

It's almost sad to see people get so far in academic careers but still hold onto their biases and prejudices like security blankets. I get it that EVERYONE has sacred cow beliefs, but Jordan Peterson should in theory know better than to let his ideals born out of wishful thinking get in the way of reality.

he is not an anthropologist

Look I don't want to be too much of a STEMlord but something you'll notice about a lot of these supremely cringe evopsych PhDs is that they have quite a bit more time with the psych part and a lot less with the evo part

(Okay maybe there are some cringe as fuck Evo types too but the first people I ever heard laughing in public at Pee Pee Jordanson videos were some evolutionary biology grads so I want to believe they are above this shit)

For a bad time, look up Dr. Professor Jordan S. Peterson MD. PhD Esquire's takes on climate change.

The next top level comment down from that one is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, let's keep believing the old hypothesis anyway" malding lol

It's been long enough the mods may have cleaned it up, but there was a lot of brainwormed shit downthread. There are some quotes of it elsewhere in this thread.