Humanities desk
< August 20	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 21

Hunter-gatherer vs. farmer evolutionary psychology

Is Andreas Hofer's theory of hunter-gatherer vs. farmer traits in human psychology based on accurate characterizations of hunter-gatherer and farmer societies? 2601:644:100:9F20:7945:B5E9:A888:6718 (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Andreas Hofer you have in mind is probably not the Andreas Hofer you linked to... AnonMoos (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This one. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever this is, it is not a scholarly work. Like most pop psychology texts fixated on classifying people into personality types, it advances an unverifiable theory. We have no way of evaluating the accuracy of any presumed psychological traits of prehistoric human societies. We can study contemporary societies whose traditional ways have not yet been destroyed by Western society, but this has hardly yielded unambiguous universal traits associated with specific social organization forms. --Lambiam 23:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This. I tend to refer to most of those personality typing schemes as "zodiac for nerds". I find it sums up how they're used quite nicely, especially if you listen to someone from the 70s that's really into zodiac talk about it. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Evolutionary_psychology#Reception_and_criticism and Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology. My understanding is that many evolutionary scientists are very dubious about the claims of "evolutionary psychology". Evolutionary psychologists often make arguments to the effect that "people do X because cavemen did X", without first showing either that "cavemen" did do X, nor that X is a genetically inheritable trait, nor even that "people" in general do X (as opposed to people in a particular time and place). Iapetus (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say that present-day hunter-gatherer societies match the profile here -- i.e. that they are night owls, are emonogamous, have later puberty than farmer societies, etc.? 2601:644:100:9F20:A1B5:912D:6E31:E349 (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can read-up on the subject and decide for yourself (per above: "We don't answer requests for opinions")

For example:

"Hunter-Gatherer Culture". National Geographic Society. 19 August 2019.
Scanes, Colin G. (1 January 2018). "Chapter 4 - Hunter-Gatherers". Animals and Human Society. Academic Press. pp. 65–82.
Ember, Carol R. (1 June 2020). "Hunter-Gatherers (Foragers)". Human Relations Area Files. Yale University.
Doucleff, Michaeleen (October 1, 2017). "Are Hunter-Gatherers The Happiest Humans To Inhabit Earth?". NPR.org.

--107.15.157.44 (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read, hunter-gatherer societies tend to be "slightly polygynous" -- i.e. most men have one wife, but a few exceptional males manage to attract two -- and to have a later onset of female puberty than modern wealthy industrial societies (since foods high in sugar, fat, and protein are not always available, and many hunter-gatherers go through periods when only relatively low-quality foods are easily available), but an earlier onset than traditional agricultural peasant societies (which tend to have a monotonous diet dominated by grain)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion at https://cbbforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7050 . Salmoneus has a number of criticisms of this theory. Khemehekis (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

US election night concessions

I concede before asking this question that I have not done a thorough Google or Wikipedia search.... because I am sure I will get a better answer here than there.

What are the political and practical ramifications of an election night concession? (Let's say in US systems.) Surely the answer is 'none' but people seem to give them big weight. Hayttom (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has a significant psychological impact. Generally, by the time a candidate concedes, all the election followers know the outcome to a high degree of confidence, but the newsies seem to treat it as "official" after a concession.

Occasionally that can arguably bleed over into something practical. Al Gore jumped the gun in the 2000 United States presidential election and conceded before everything was really totally clear in Florida (which wouldn't be decided officially for another month, and which people still argue about to this day). He withdrew the concession, but did it affect subsequent recounts and court battles? Hard to know. --Trovatore (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Concessions aren’t really legally binding, at least not as far as I know. But the concession is coupled with a winding down of the campaign that could have a practical effect depending on when the concession is made and the actions are taken. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They couldn't possibly be legally binding. Otherwise, the result of an election would come down to whatever one person says it is, and that would leave the vast electoral bureaucracy, and the laws they administer, somewhat in the lurch. Also, if a concession were legally binding, would that also work for a claim of victory? I rather doubt it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they have no legal effect per se. My speculation is that it's not completely guaranteed that the judges deciding the various court cases are immune to the psychological effect. Once someone concedes, there's a tendency to think it's over. Then it takes extra mental energy to reverse that perception. --Trovatore (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the fact that anyone runs for office in the first place is the choice of the person running. You absolutely can refuse to take office despite being elected (even if it goes as far as the electoral college), and 3 U.S.C. § 20 provides that refusals to accept the office of President are at least evidence (it's likely one would be binding). I'm not even sure what to make of the analogy to claims of victory; it isn't really apt. In short, while I agree concessions aren't legally binding, I don't think it's exactly for the reasons you articulate, nor do I think it's the necessary rule. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can definitely refuse to take office, but that doesn't mean any particular one of your opponents accedes to the office. Presumably it's treated as a vacancy, and filled (or not) according to the procedures for the given office. That's very different from a concession, which is an acknowledgment that one of your opponents has defeated you. It is possible for that acknowledgment to be mistaken. --Trovatore (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A concession speech is just another political speech. It has no legal standing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even before the concession speech, look to see when the supporters of one side stop partying and fall silent (and sometimes burst into tears). 2A00:23A8:4015:F500:38A0:573D:6554:4D7 (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is kind of important for the losing candidate make a statement that he/she will abide by the results of the election and that his/her followers should as well. The candidate could instead call on followers to dispute the election, which would make smooth, peaceful transitions of power difficult.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody, I'll mark this

Resolved

but if I lost an election I don't think I'd concede until the authorities said I'd lost.