• Tedesche@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ll wait until there’s greater consensus in the field. These papers reek of scientists who have strong political motivations to find the answers they seek, and I’m not expert enough to critique their work.

    • lemmy689@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s been a long time since I’ve been in Anthropology class, but this isn’t something we were taught academically. Cultural Anthro is all theory-based, academics get paid to publish theory arguments. Imo, biologically, women carried babies, men didn’t, there would have been associated cultural roles to accomodate this as successfully as possible. The idea that it’s popular theory this meant men hunted and women gathered is just sensationalist. It’s niether competely wrong nor completely right. There are elements of both throughout many cultures. It’s the idea that it’s all or nothing is wrong.

    • osarusan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Remember that the existing consensus was also created by scientists with political and social motivations who made plenty of assumptions about gender.

      A challenge to the status quo isn’t automatically biased just because it challenges the status quo.

      • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except that the “existing consensus” as portrayed in the article is phony in the sense that no anthropologist has seriously believed or promulgated binary hunting and gathering roles for men and women since at least the 1960s. That may be a notion that exists in the popular imagination, but it doesn’t exist in contemporary anthropology and hasn’t for decades.

    • bedrooms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m skeptical about the popular theory.

      While I haven’t checked their papers, I still do think this particular article is not convincing. They say the man-the-hunter theorists rejected data but don’t cite articles that point at the flaw. It’s business as usual to overlook data in real-world science. The question is, how significant the overlook was, but they don’t cite anything scholarly, call it a day and move on.

      Then they say traditional studies can have bias because they are done by men. This sounds shockingly unprofessional to me.

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well you did just critique them. But without offering any meaningful criticism, just political feelings.

      • Tedesche@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, I pointed out that they self-identify as feminists and are claiming to have found evidence of a finding feminists would salivate over. Investigator bias is a real problem in scientific research and I see some pretty obvious red flags for it here. You’re the one who seems butthurt at someone not immediately accepting a political point you favor.