https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/brv.12730

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/brv.12730
>

ABSTRACT
Compared to most other mammals and birds, anthropoid primates have unusually
complex societies characterised by bonded social groups. Among primates, this
effect is encapsulated in the social brain hypothesis: the robust
correlation between
various indices of social complexity (social group size, grooming clique
size, tactical behaviour, coalition formation) and brain size. Hitherto,
this has always been
interpreted as a simple, unitary relationship. Using data for five
different indices of
brain volume from four independent brain databases, we show that the
distribution
of group size plotted against brain size is best described as a set of
four distinct, very narrowly defined grades which are unrelated to
phylogeny. The allocation of genera
to these grades is highly consistent across the different data sets and
brain indices.
We show that these grades correspond to the progressive evolution of
bonded social groups. In addition, we show, for those species that live in
multilevel social systems,
that the typical sizes of the different grouping levels in each case
coincide with different grades. This suggests that the grades correspond
to demographic attractors that are especially stable. Using five different
cognitive indices, we show that the grades correlate with increasing
social cognitive skills, suggesting that the cognitive demands of managing
group cohesion increase progressively across grades. We argue that the
grades themselves represent glass ceilings on animals' capacity to
maintain social and spatial coherence
during foraging and that, in order to evolve more highly bonded groups,
species have to
be able to invest in costly forms of cognition.

"The fact that large unstable groups occur mainly in grades I and II
perhaps suggests
that, during their evolution, primates initially counteracted external
threats (such as increased predation risk or conflict with neighbouring
groups) by opting for larger
groups at the expense of coherence, much as herding mammals do. "

On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 2:29:42 AM UTC-4, Primum Sapienti wrote:
> DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> > https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/brv.12730
> >
>
> ABSTRACT
> Compared to most other mammals and birds, anthropoid primates have unusually
> complex societies characterised by bonded social groups. Among primates, this
> effect is encapsulated in the social brain hypothesis: the robust
> correlation between
> various indices of social complexity (social group size, grooming clique
> size, tactical behaviour, coalition formation) and brain size. Hitherto,
> this has always been
> interpreted as a simple, unitary relationship. Using data for five
> different indices of
> brain volume from four independent brain databases, we show that the
> distribution
> of group size plotted against brain size is best described as a set of
> four distinct, very narrowly defined grades which are unrelated to
> phylogeny. The allocation of genera
> to these grades is highly consistent across the different data sets and
> brain indices.
> We show that these grades correspond to the progressive evolution of
> bonded social groups. In addition, we show, for those species that live in
> multilevel social systems,
> that the typical sizes of the different grouping levels in each case
> coincide with different grades. This suggests that the grades correspond
> to demographic attractors that are especially stable. Using five different
> cognitive indices, we show that the grades correlate with increasing
> social cognitive skills, suggesting that the cognitive demands of managing
> group cohesion increase progressively across grades. We argue that the
> grades themselves represent glass ceilings on animals' capacity to
> maintain social and spatial coherence
> during foraging and that, in order to evolve more highly bonded groups,
> species have to
> be able to invest in costly forms of cognition.
>
>
> "The fact that large unstable groups occur mainly in grades I and II
> perhaps suggests
> that, during their evolution, primates initially counteracted external
> threats (such as increased predation risk or conflict with neighbouring
> groups) by opting for larger
> groups at the expense of coherence, much as herding mammals do. "

My point: humans are hypersocially hierarchical, yet tend towards some form of monogamy, this is unusual.

onsdag den 1. september 2021 kl. 08.38.54 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 2:29:42 AM UTC-4, Primum Sapienti wrote:
> > DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> > > https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/brv.12730
> > >
> >
> > ABSTRACT
> > Compared to most other mammals and birds, anthropoid primates have unusually
> > complex societies characterised by bonded social groups. Among primates, this
> > effect is encapsulated in the social brain hypothesis: the robust
> > correlation between
> > various indices of social complexity (social group size, grooming clique
> > size, tactical behaviour, coalition formation) and brain size. Hitherto,
> > this has always been
> > interpreted as a simple, unitary relationship. Using data for five
> > different indices of
> > brain volume from four independent brain databases, we show that the
> > distribution
> > of group size plotted against brain size is best described as a set of
> > four distinct, very narrowly defined grades which are unrelated to
> > phylogeny. The allocation of genera
> > to these grades is highly consistent across the different data sets and
> > brain indices.
> > We show that these grades correspond to the progressive evolution of
> > bonded social groups. In addition, we show, for those species that live in
> > multilevel social systems,
> > that the typical sizes of the different grouping levels in each case
> > coincide with different grades. This suggests that the grades correspond
> > to demographic attractors that are especially stable. Using five different
> > cognitive indices, we show that the grades correlate with increasing
> > social cognitive skills, suggesting that the cognitive demands of managing
> > group cohesion increase progressively across grades. We argue that the
> > grades themselves represent glass ceilings on animals' capacity to
> > maintain social and spatial coherence
> > during foraging and that, in order to evolve more highly bonded groups,
> > species have to
> > be able to invest in costly forms of cognition.
> >
> >
> > "The fact that large unstable groups occur mainly in grades I and II
> > perhaps suggests
> > that, during their evolution, primates initially counteracted external
> > threats (such as increased predation risk or conflict with neighbouring
> > groups) by opting for larger
> > groups at the expense of coherence, much as herding mammals do. "
> My point: humans are hypersocially hierarchical, yet tend towards some form of monogamy, this is unusual.

One problem: The genetic spread on the male half of the gene pool is less than the female half. Meaning we have fewer forefathers than foremothers. Biologically, we're a polygynous ape, not a monogamous one.
Current observed monogamy is a few centuries old cultural construct and still far from absolute. Which is why som many dads around have sons that don't look like them. Momma has a silly tendency to screw up those exact two days she's ovulating. 'Cause she's still ethologically prone to seek to be impregnated with the next generation with the one male that dominates all the other males. How he dominates the other males doesn't really matter to her egg. Which is why Charles Manson left behind one child more to the gene pool than Albert Einstein. That's the ape we've been for ten million years, and culture can and does not change that.

On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 7:28:13 AM UTC-4, C. H. Engelbrecht wrote:
> onsdag den 1. september 2021 kl. 08.38.54 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
> > On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 2:29:42 AM UTC-4, Primum Sapienti wrote:
> > > DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> > > > https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/brv.12730
> > > >
> > >
> > > ABSTRACT
> > > Compared to most other mammals and birds, anthropoid primates have unusually
> > > complex societies characterised by bonded social groups. Among primates, this
> > > effect is encapsulated in the social brain hypothesis: the robust
> > > correlation between
> > > various indices of social complexity (social group size, grooming clique
> > > size, tactical behaviour, coalition formation) and brain size. Hitherto,
> > > this has always been
> > > interpreted as a simple, unitary relationship. Using data for five
> > > different indices of
> > > brain volume from four independent brain databases, we show that the
> > > distribution
> > > of group size plotted against brain size is best described as a set of
> > > four distinct, very narrowly defined grades which are unrelated to
> > > phylogeny. The allocation of genera
> > > to these grades is highly consistent across the different data sets and
> > > brain indices.
> > > We show that these grades correspond to the progressive evolution of
> > > bonded social groups. In addition, we show, for those species that live in
> > > multilevel social systems,
> > > that the typical sizes of the different grouping levels in each case
> > > coincide with different grades. This suggests that the grades correspond
> > > to demographic attractors that are especially stable. Using five different
> > > cognitive indices, we show that the grades correlate with increasing
> > > social cognitive skills, suggesting that the cognitive demands of managing
> > > group cohesion increase progressively across grades. We argue that the
> > > grades themselves represent glass ceilings on animals' capacity to
> > > maintain social and spatial coherence
> > > during foraging and that, in order to evolve more highly bonded groups,
> > > species have to
> > > be able to invest in costly forms of cognition.
> > >
> > >
> > > "The fact that large unstable groups occur mainly in grades I and II
> > > perhaps suggests
> > > that, during their evolution, primates initially counteracted external
> > > threats (such as increased predation risk or conflict with neighbouring
> > > groups) by opting for larger
> > > groups at the expense of coherence, much as herding mammals do. "
> > My point: humans are hypersocially hierarchical, yet tend towards some form of monogamy, this is unusual.
> One problem: The genetic spread on the male half of the gene pool is less than the female half. Meaning we have fewer forefathers than foremothers. Biologically, we're a polygynous ape, not a monogamous one.

Swidden agriculture results in polygyny. Archaic Homo wasn't practising that.

> Current observed monogamy is a few centuries old cultural construct

Monogamy is archaic preceding sapiens.

and still far from absolute. Which is why som many dads around have sons that don't look like them. Momma has a silly tendency to screw up those exact two days she's ovulating. 'Cause she's still ethologically prone to seek to be impregnated with the next generation with the one male that dominates all the other males. How he dominates the other males doesn't really matter to her egg. Which is why Charles Manson left behind one child more to the gene pool than Albert Einstein. That's the ape we've been for ten million years, and culture can and does not change that.

Gorillas not Homo do that. Humans are hypersocial yet tend to monogamy. Bastards are not uncommon but tend to get less resources.

torsdag den 2. september 2021 kl. 08.21.52 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
> > > My point: humans are hypersocially hierarchical, yet tend towards some form of monogamy, this is unusual.
> > One problem: The genetic spread on the male half of the gene pool is less than the female half. Meaning we have fewer forefathers than foremothers.. Biologically, we're a polygynous ape, not a monogamous one.
> Swidden agriculture results in polygyny. Archaic Homo wasn't practising that.

They would've had to, 'cause the genetic spread shows it. Through the eons a certain percentage of males would've had to have been born and die without furthering their genes., ie. they didn't have kids. Meaning that some males for deca millenia would've had to have kids with more than one woman in his life time. This long, long before any recent civilisation defining any cultural standards of either monogamy or polygyny.

> > Current observed monogamy is a few centuries old cultural construct
> Monogamy is archaic preceding sapiens.

No. That is genetically impossible. Otherwise there wouldn't be this observed difference in the spread on male and female gene halves.

> and still far from absolute. Which is why som many dads around have sons that don't look like them. Momma has a silly tendency to screw up those exact two days she's ovulating. 'Cause she's still ethologically prone to seek to be impregnated with the next generation with the one male that dominates all the other males. How he dominates the other males doesn't really matter to her egg. Which is why Charles Manson left behind one child more to the gene pool than Albert Einstein. That's the ape we've been for ten million years, and culture can and does not change that.
> Gorillas not Homo do that. Humans are hypersocial yet tend to monogamy. Bastards are not uncommon but tend to get less resources.

No, all of that is cultural, and of very recent date. It cannot have been the primal tendency for archaic sapiens or its descendants.

Our primal mating ethology is exactly that of the common chimpanzee, our closest genetic cousin: Both man and chimp is born 50/50 males and females, but only few dominant males end up impregnating the fertile females. That's why both man and male chimp becomes a violent psychopath as soon as they reach maturity, splitting the skull of other males is the primal fight for the mating rights. That's why wars exist, both for human and chimp. Warfare is how the mating rights have been divided since the dawn of time. We have always made war before we make love, and still do to this day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_Males

On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 2:51:04 AM UTC-4, C. H. Engelbrecht wrote:
> torsdag den 2. september 2021 kl. 08.21.52 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
> > > > My point: humans are hypersocially hierarchical, yet tend towards some form of monogamy, this is unusual.
> > > One problem: The genetic spread on the male half of the gene pool is less than the female half. Meaning we have fewer forefathers than foremothers. Biologically, we're a polygynous ape, not a monogamous one.
> > Swidden agriculture results in polygyny. Archaic Homo wasn't practising that.
> They would've had to, 'cause the genetic spread shows it. Through the eons a certain percentage of males would've had to have been born and die without furthering their genes

That is the norm in nature.

.., ie. they didn't have kids. Meaning that some males for deca millenia would've had to have kids with more than one woman in his life time.

Serial monogamy. Short-term partnerships, seasonal switches, deaths, etc.

This long, long before any recent civilisation defining any cultural standards of either monogamy or polygyny.
> > > Current observed monogamy is a few centuries old cultural construct
> > Monogamy is archaic preceding sapiens.
> No. That is genetically impossible. Otherwise there wouldn't be this observed difference in the spread on male and female gene halves.
> > and still far from absolute. Which is why som many dads around have sons that don't look like them. Momma has a silly tendency to screw up those exact two days she's ovulating. 'Cause she's still ethologically prone to seek to be impregnated with the next generation with the one male that dominates all the other males. How he dominates the other males doesn't really matter to her egg. Which is why Charles Manson left behind one child more to the gene pool than Albert Einstein. That's the ape we've been for ten million years, and culture can and does not change that.
> > Gorillas not Homo do that. Humans are hypersocial yet tend to monogamy. Bastards are not uncommon but tend to get less resources.
> No, all of that is cultural, and of very recent date. It cannot have been the primal tendency for archaic sapiens or its descendants.
>
> Our primal mating ethology is exactly that of the common chimpanzee, our closest genetic cousin: Both man and chimp is born 50/50 males and females, but only few dominant males end up impregnating the fertile females. That's why both man and male chimp becomes a violent psychopath as soon as they reach maturity, splitting the skull of other males is the primal fight for the mating rights. That's why wars exist, both for human and chimp. Warfare is how the mating rights have been divided since the dawn of time. We have always made war before we make love, and still do to this day.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_Males

Your using Goodall's chimp war story as evidence proves to me your ignorance. They were due to banana gifting.
Use the term hypersocial or go away. Humans are hypersocial, priority 1.

torsdag den 2. september 2021 kl. 12.19.15 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
> On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 2:51:04 AM UTC-4, C. H. Engelbrecht wrote:
> > torsdag den 2. september 2021 kl. 08.21.52 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
> > > > > My point: humans are hypersocially hierarchical, yet tend towards some form of monogamy, this is unusual.
> > > > One problem: The genetic spread on the male half of the gene pool is less than the female half. Meaning we have fewer forefathers than foremothers. Biologically, we're a polygynous ape, not a monogamous one.
> > > Swidden agriculture results in polygyny. Archaic Homo wasn't practising that.
> > They would've had to, 'cause the genetic spread shows it. Through the eons a certain percentage of males would've had to have been born and die without furthering their genes
> That is the norm in nature.
> ., ie. they didn't have kids. Meaning that some males for deca millenia would've had to have kids with more than one woman in his life time.
> Serial monogamy. Short-term partnerships, seasonal switches, deaths, etc.
> This long, long before any recent civilisation defining any cultural standards of either monogamy or polygyny.
> > > > Current observed monogamy is a few centuries old cultural construct
> > > Monogamy is archaic preceding sapiens.
> > No. That is genetically impossible. Otherwise there wouldn't be this observed difference in the spread on male and female gene halves.
> > > and still far from absolute. Which is why som many dads around have sons that don't look like them. Momma has a silly tendency to screw up those exact two days she's ovulating. 'Cause she's still ethologically prone to seek to be impregnated with the next generation with the one male that dominates all the other males. How he dominates the other males doesn't really matter to her egg. Which is why Charles Manson left behind one child more to the gene pool than Albert Einstein. That's the ape we've been for ten million years, and culture can and does not change that.
> > > Gorillas not Homo do that. Humans are hypersocial yet tend to monogamy. Bastards are not uncommon but tend to get less resources.
> > No, all of that is cultural, and of very recent date. It cannot have been the primal tendency for archaic sapiens or its descendants.
> >
> > Our primal mating ethology is exactly that of the common chimpanzee, our closest genetic cousin: Both man and chimp is born 50/50 males and females, but only few dominant males end up impregnating the fertile females. That's why both man and male chimp becomes a violent psychopath as soon as they reach maturity, splitting the skull of other males is the primal fight for the mating rights. That's why wars exist, both for human and chimp. Warfare is how the mating rights have been divided since the dawn of time. We have always made war before we make love, and still do to this day.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_Males
> Your using Goodall's chimp war story as evidence proves to me your ignorance. They were due to banana gifting.
> Use the term hypersocial or go away. Humans are hypersocial, priority 1.

Only one female was a casualty in three years of Gombe war. Can we agree that war is very much a man's game? Isn't it weird how unpopular war suddenly became in the 20th? 'Cause now war had become total war, meaning you also had to destroy the enemy's infrastructure to win. It wasn't enough anymore for Napoleon and Wellington to amass deca thousands of firm young men and have them hack each other to death in fields of eternal glory, so Josephine would hand over her virtues to the boss man. By the 20th, now you had to collatoral the shite out of the civilian population too to win. And there's something wrong with that, ain't there? On a primal level, that's not "proper" war, is it? 'Cause total war also slaughters women, children and elders, and that's just plain nuts! Especially women, they're the frickin' war loot!!! That's the only way you have ever been able to recruit the cannon fodder, by promising them womenfolk (sometimes in the fucking afterlife!), if they win the battle! Whether it's US Marines or ISIS. Taliban's boys can pick and choose now amongst which of the most fertile they want to impregnate, in the name of Allah to boot. And twenty years of US vets ain't getting any shine of pussy now, 'cause they lost the bloodshed, just like the Vietnam vets before them.

There's no primal difference between these two apes:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2119677-chimps-beat-up-murder-and-then-cannibalise-their-former-tyrant/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi
The endgame is exactly the same. Taking his women! All war is about sex. It has never been about anything else, from Helen of Troy to Eva Braun and ten million years leading up to them. Any summary of world history is the history of war, it is war that defines humanity. 'Cause war gets you the mating rights.

Gorillas' polygyny is so much easier, 'cause they aren't born 50/50 male and female. Humans and chimps are, making violence the only way to allow for polygyny, as it removes the competition for the fertile females. Functionally and genetically, we are both polygynous too. Nothing embarasses you like a relative.

Fuck, I hate human nature. No fucking way we're the peak of evolution with such a self-destructive mating behaviour.

On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 11:47:56 AM UTC-4, C. H. Engelbrecht wrote:
> torsdag den 2. september 2021 kl. 12.19.15 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
> > On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 2:51:04 AM UTC-4, C. H. Engelbrecht wrote:
> > > torsdag den 2. september 2021 kl. 08.21.52 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
> > > > > > My point: humans are hypersocially hierarchical, yet tend towards some form of monogamy, this is unusual.
> > > > > One problem: The genetic spread on the male half of the gene pool is less than the female half. Meaning we have fewer forefathers than foremothers. Biologically, we're a polygynous ape, not a monogamous one.
> > > > Swidden agriculture results in polygyny. Archaic Homo wasn't practising that.
> > > They would've had to, 'cause the genetic spread shows it. Through the eons a certain percentage of males would've had to have been born and die without furthering their genes
> > That is the norm in nature.
> > ., ie. they didn't have kids. Meaning that some males for deca millenia would've had to have kids with more than one woman in his life time.
> > Serial monogamy. Short-term partnerships, seasonal switches, deaths, etc.
> > This long, long before any recent civilisation defining any cultural standards of either monogamy or polygyny.
> > > > > Current observed monogamy is a few centuries old cultural construct
> > > > Monogamy is archaic preceding sapiens.
> > > No. That is genetically impossible. Otherwise there wouldn't be this observed difference in the spread on male and female gene halves.
> > > > and still far from absolute. Which is why som many dads around have sons that don't look like them. Momma has a silly tendency to screw up those exact two days she's ovulating. 'Cause she's still ethologically prone to seek to be impregnated with the next generation with the one male that dominates all the other males. How he dominates the other males doesn't really matter to her egg. Which is why Charles Manson left behind one child more to the gene pool than Albert Einstein. That's the ape we've been for ten million years, and culture can and does not change that.
> > > > Gorillas not Homo do that. Humans are hypersocial yet tend to monogamy. Bastards are not uncommon but tend to get less resources.
> > > No, all of that is cultural, and of very recent date. It cannot have been the primal tendency for archaic sapiens or its descendants.
> > >
> > > Our primal mating ethology is exactly that of the common chimpanzee, our closest genetic cousin: Both man and chimp is born 50/50 males and females, but only few dominant males end up impregnating the fertile females. That's why both man and male chimp becomes a violent psychopath as soon as they reach maturity, splitting the skull of other males is the primal fight for the mating rights. That's why wars exist, both for human and chimp. Warfare is how the mating rights have been divided since the dawn of time. We have always made war before we make love, and still do to this day.
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_Males
> > Your using Goodall's chimp war story as evidence proves to me your ignorance. They were due to banana gifting.
> > Use the term hypersocial or go away. Humans are hypersocial, priority 1..
> Only one female was a casualty in three years of Gombe war. Can we agree that war is very much a man's game? Isn't it weird how unpopular war suddenly became in the 20th? 'Cause now war had become total war, meaning you also had to destroy the enemy's infrastructure to win. It wasn't enough anymore for Napoleon and Wellington to amass deca thousands of firm young men and have them hack each other to death in fields of eternal glory, so Josephine would hand over her virtues to the boss man. By the 20th, now you had to collatoral the shite out of the civilian population too to win. And there's something wrong with that, ain't there? On a primal level, that's not "proper" war, is it? 'Cause total war also slaughters women, children and elders, and that's just plain nuts! Especially women, they're the frickin' war loot!!! That's the only way you have ever been able to recruit the cannon fodder, by promising them womenfolk (sometimes in the fucking afterlife!), if they win the battle! Whether it's US Marines or ISIS. Taliban's boys can pick and choose now amongst which of the most fertile they want to impregnate, in the name of Allah to boot. And twenty years of US vets ain't getting any shine of pussy now, 'cause they lost the bloodshed, just like the Vietnam vets before them.
>
> There's no primal difference between these two apes:
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2119677-chimps-beat-up-murder-and-then-cannibalise-their-former-tyrant/
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi
> The endgame is exactly the same. Taking his women! All war is about sex. It has never been about anything else, from Helen of Troy to Eva Braun and ten million years leading up to them. Any summary of world history is the history of war, it is war that defines humanity. 'Cause war gets you the mating rights.
>
> Gorillas' polygyny is so much easier, 'cause they aren't born 50/50 male and female. Humans and chimps are, making violence the only way to allow for polygyny, as it removes the competition for the fertile females. Functionally and genetically, we are both polygynous too. Nothing embarasses you like a relative.

You failed to use the term hypersocial, so the rest is irrelevant to me. I need no preacher. Gigo.

fredag den 3. september 2021 kl. 02.44.00 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
> On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 11:47:56 AM UTC-4, C. H. Engelbrecht wrote:
> > torsdag den 2. september 2021 kl. 12.19.15 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
> > > On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 2:51:04 AM UTC-4, C. H. Engelbrecht wrote:
> > > > torsdag den 2. september 2021 kl. 08.21.52 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
> > > > > > > My point: humans are hypersocially hierarchical, yet tend towards some form of monogamy, this is unusual.
> > > > > > One problem: The genetic spread on the male half of the gene pool is less than the female half. Meaning we have fewer forefathers than foremothers. Biologically, we're a polygynous ape, not a monogamous one.
> > > > > Swidden agriculture results in polygyny. Archaic Homo wasn't practising that.
> > > > They would've had to, 'cause the genetic spread shows it. Through the eons a certain percentage of males would've had to have been born and die without furthering their genes
> > > That is the norm in nature.
> > > ., ie. they didn't have kids. Meaning that some males for deca millenia would've had to have kids with more than one woman in his life time.
> > > Serial monogamy. Short-term partnerships, seasonal switches, deaths, etc.
> > > This long, long before any recent civilisation defining any cultural standards of either monogamy or polygyny.
> > > > > > Current observed monogamy is a few centuries old cultural construct
> > > > > Monogamy is archaic preceding sapiens.
> > > > No. That is genetically impossible. Otherwise there wouldn't be this observed difference in the spread on male and female gene halves.
> > > > > and still far from absolute. Which is why som many dads around have sons that don't look like them. Momma has a silly tendency to screw up those exact two days she's ovulating. 'Cause she's still ethologically prone to seek to be impregnated with the next generation with the one male that dominates all the other males. How he dominates the other males doesn't really matter to her egg. Which is why Charles Manson left behind one child more to the gene pool than Albert Einstein. That's the ape we've been for ten million years, and culture can and does not change that.
> > > > > Gorillas not Homo do that. Humans are hypersocial yet tend to monogamy. Bastards are not uncommon but tend to get less resources.
> > > > No, all of that is cultural, and of very recent date. It cannot have been the primal tendency for archaic sapiens or its descendants.
> > > >
> > > > Our primal mating ethology is exactly that of the common chimpanzee, our closest genetic cousin: Both man and chimp is born 50/50 males and females, but only few dominant males end up impregnating the fertile females. That's why both man and male chimp becomes a violent psychopath as soon as they reach maturity, splitting the skull of other males is the primal fight for the mating rights. That's why wars exist, both for human and chimp. Warfare is how the mating rights have been divided since the dawn of time. We have always made war before we make love, and still do to this day.
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_Males
> > > Your using Goodall's chimp war story as evidence proves to me your ignorance. They were due to banana gifting.
> > > Use the term hypersocial or go away. Humans are hypersocial, priority 1.
> > Only one female was a casualty in three years of Gombe war. Can we agree that war is very much a man's game? Isn't it weird how unpopular war suddenly became in the 20th? 'Cause now war had become total war, meaning you also had to destroy the enemy's infrastructure to win. It wasn't enough anymore for Napoleon and Wellington to amass deca thousands of firm young men and have them hack each other to death in fields of eternal glory, so Josephine would hand over her virtues to the boss man. By the 20th, now you had to collatoral the shite out of the civilian population too to win. And there's something wrong with that, ain't there? On a primal level, that's not "proper" war, is it? 'Cause total war also slaughters women, children and elders, and that's just plain nuts! Especially women, they're the frickin' war loot!!! That's the only way you have ever been able to recruit the cannon fodder, by promising them womenfolk (sometimes in the fucking afterlife!), if they win the battle! Whether it's US Marines or ISIS. Taliban's boys can pick and choose now amongst which of the most fertile they want to impregnate, in the name of Allah to boot. And twenty years of US vets ain't getting any shine of pussy now, 'cause they lost the bloodshed, just like the Vietnam vets before them.
> >
> > There's no primal difference between these two apes:
> > https://www.newscientist.com/article/2119677-chimps-beat-up-murder-and-then-cannibalise-their-former-tyrant/
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi
> > The endgame is exactly the same. Taking his women! All war is about sex.. It has never been about anything else, from Helen of Troy to Eva Braun and ten million years leading up to them. Any summary of world history is the history of war, it is war that defines humanity. 'Cause war gets you the mating rights.
> >
> > Gorillas' polygyny is so much easier, 'cause they aren't born 50/50 male and female. Humans and chimps are, making violence the only way to allow for polygyny, as it removes the competition for the fertile females. Functionally and genetically, we are both polygynous too. Nothing embarasses you like a relative.
> You failed to use the term hypersocial, so the rest is irrelevant to me. I need no preacher. Gigo.

Fuck you too, sapiens.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> we show that the distribution

Given the context, what the hell is "Grades" supposed to mean?

I am not asking what it means, I am asking what it means WITHIN
THE CONTEXT of the cite. There is a difference. Because the way
they are using the word doesn't seem to correspond with anything.

It honestly looks like one of those machine-authored "Papers." That,
or some gibbering idiots had nothing better to do while waiting for
their fries at McDonalds so they wrote it.

Neither author listed has anything to do with biology let alone paleo
anthropology. One is apparently a psychologist and the other is
labelled an environmental scientist.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/661198075612839936

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> Monogamy is archaic preceding sapiens.

"Monogamy" in humans is expressed socially in terms of legitimate
vs. bastard children. A legitimate child could inherit a name, a title,
the family wealth. Biologically it was always in terms of females, not
males. A male could leave as many bastard children around as he
wanted, a woman had to be loyal in order to preserve the bloodline.

In nature we find an analog in things like the gorilla, where one male
has many females.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/661198075612839936

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> we show that the distribution
>
> Given the context, what the hell is "Grades" supposed to mean?
>
> I am not asking what it means, I am asking what it means WITHIN
> THE CONTEXT of the cite. There is a difference. Because the way

Please give more context here. What is the quote from the paper you are
referring to?

> they are using the word doesn't seem to correspond with anything.
>
> It honestly looks like one of those machine-authored "Papers." That,
> or some gibbering idiots had nothing better to do while waiting for
> their fries at McDonalds so they wrote it.
>
> Neither author listed has anything to do with biology let alone paleo
> anthropology. One is apparently a psychologist and the other is
> labelled an environmental scientist.