The vast majority of human societies had no herirachical social arrangements. That is found almost exclusively in agricultural societies. Once again, if such a thing is instinctive it was easily overridden by most of the people who ever lived.
I’m gonna ask for a cite on this statement. Hierarchy can be a subtle thing, esp in societies with little material possesions
Sure, it’s hardly controversial.
Political life was relatively egalitarian: inequities in power and influence were uncommon, though fighting prowess, hunting ability, ritual expertise (including sorcery), and/or economic generosity brought prestige.
http://www.ume.maine.edu/iceage/Research/projects/NewGuinea.html
Hunter-gatherers form what Anthropologists call egalitarian relationships. This means that everyone in the group is thought of on equal terms. There is little opportunity in these groups for economic or other kinds of specialization to develop. What one person knows and believes, the entire group tends to know and believe. Life is communal; cultural and technical knowledge and skills are widely shared. A sense of egalitarianism tends to prevail, and there are no sharp social distinction which can be found between individual.
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/lifeways/hunt_gather2.html
the social structure of hunter-gatherer cultures tends to be fairly egalitarian
http://wfcb.ucdavis.edu/www/Faculty/Peter/petermoyle/publications/chapter1.pdf.
In which case we are left asking the quetsion, if it is so subtle how do we determine that it exists at all? The whole point of a heriarchy is that those involved have to be aware that it is there, and it has to be enforced. If that isn’t the case it doesn’t exist in anyy meaningful way.
The point being that we have no evidence that the vast majority of HG groups did have a heirarchical social arrangement and a lot of evidence indicating they did not. At which point we have to go with the preponderance of evidence. It’s not proof but it’s the best we are goig to get.
lol, natures call, have you played a lot of Mao?
Blake and ultrafilter have both claimed that a behavior must be complex to be considered an instinct. Blake specifically said
In this thread, which the OP created as a followup to this one, I repeated that claim, using their posts as my cite. But I can’t actually verify it myself. Where could I find the definition of “instinct” used by biologists? What were your sources for the claim?
My sources when I wrote it were a Biology degree over 10 years ago and years of work with ethologists.
If you want something more concrete then any of the following sites will confirm that an instinct is a complex behaviour. Really this isn’t a particularly ocntroversial subject i have never known anyone to actually dipsute it. A simple Google search simply confirmed the defintion.
Of course you should be aware that “instinct” like, almost any term in the biological sciences, isn’t rigidly defined. Instinct, reflex and imprinted behaviour blur into one another in practice and there are other definitions in use, and of course other people are quite corect if they wish to apply them.
[url=
Well, I wasn’t intending to challenge you–I just didn’t know. The definitions I found on [http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/instinct]the web didn’t genrally mention complexity as part of the definition, but since many words have different connotations in scientific discourse and in the vernacular, I didn’t want to rely on any of them.
Well, I wasn’t intending to challenge you–I just didn’t know. The definitions I found on the web didn’t genrally mention complexity as part of the definition, but since many words have different connotations in scientific discourse and in the vernacular, I didn’t want to rely on any of them.
What about laughter and crying?
Laughing comes without being taught, and reduces blood pressure, even in newborns.
Crying comes without being taught, and babies’ cries make parents tense up like nothing else.