diff --git "a/askanthropology/validation.json" "b/askanthropology/validation.json" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/askanthropology/validation.json" @@ -0,0 +1,203 @@ +{"post_id":"oj9we2","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"If the Sahara was arboreal until about 7000 years ago, could it mean there might be tons of archeological artifacts or even cities buried under the dunes?","c_root_id_A":"h53rl9l","c_root_id_B":"h50lvgn","created_at_utc_A":1626225356,"created_at_utc_B":1626165016,"score_A":99,"score_B":86,"human_ref_A":"I haven\u2019t heard that the Sahara was arboreal\u2026.from what I understand green Sahara was more of a savannah with some sparse trees but it wasn\u2019t wet enough to support forest growth. Petroglyphs show evidence of savannah fauna throughout the Sahara. Is there any source on a tree covered Sahara?","human_ref_B":"This would be a good question for r\/AskHistorians! In short I would say archaeology and evidence of human activity, yes but cities probably not.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":60340.0,"score_ratio":1.1511627907} +{"post_id":"i4hup5","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"How likely is it that tiny indigenous religious minorities continue to be practiced in the Middle East, in complete secrecy and insularity? Learning about the Mandaeans \u2014 a bona fide separate Abrahamic religion separate from the major three, and older than two of them, was mindblowing for me. The fact that these people survived continuously as a minority (and never numerous, and never accepting of converts) is remarkable. Sadly it would seem that a majority with the means and motive to wipe them out completely from their ancestral home in southern Mesopotamia, combined with a low birthrate and a stubborn resistance to accepting all but full-blooded members, will probably mean the end for this highly private people. But this got me thinking: Could the Mandaeans be merely the tip of a much larger iceberg, which goes almost entirely unseen? Could there be countless tiny secret religions \u2014 each with its own tribal identity and sacred scriptures in its traditional language \u2014 all hiding as devout Muslims to all outer appearances? I could imagine both pre-Abrahamic (\"pagan\", though I wince to use that word) and Abrahamic lineages of faith and prayer traditions surviving covertly this way. There are well-documented cases of crypto-religion of all sorts, much of it in and\/or from the Middle East. When violent rulers sweep through lands and demand the population change the way they worship, this is one possible path for the peasant who resents this demand, and does not want to see his faith community die out. Not all religions have either the moral principles or the cohesive leadership to outwardly defy a demand to assimilate. I imagine if such small indigenous Middle Eastern micro-religions exist, they're a mixture of documented sects thought to have died out, new sects formed quietly since antiquity and maintained for generations, and sects that are in fact millennia old, but have managed to elude the historical record completely. I also find this idea plausible, because my understanding of Middle Eastern peoples is that while they are highly polite and personable with strangers, they are all in all highly private, insular people, who only become close and personal with a small, tight circle of people (mostly blood relatives) in a lifetime. In a culture where you don't expect to form very many new deep friendships, and keep everything very surface-level with all but a handful of people, it wouldn't be all that hard to keep an entire religion, language, and ethnicity completely hidden from public view.","c_root_id_A":"g0iwgvj","c_root_id_B":"g0j6lql","created_at_utc_A":1596686952,"created_at_utc_B":1596694509,"score_A":43,"score_B":72,"human_ref_A":"There are definitely a couple of well known ethnoreligious groups in the middle East like the Samaritans and Druze. Maybe there are other ethnic groups that get overlooked that practice a unique faith or some variant of what outsiders might classify as Islam or Christianity. There's a lot of gray area when it comes to imposing categories on patterns of rituals. Especially in the Middle East where different ethnic groups and faiths have moved around over such a long time.","human_ref_B":"If you're interested in this I'd strongly recommend reading Heirs to Forgotten Kingdoms by Gerard Russell: *former diplomat Gerard Russell ventures to the distant, nearly impassable regions where these mysterious religions still cling to survival. He lives alongside the Mandaeans and Ezidis of Iraq, the Zoroastrians of Iran, the Copts of Egypt, and others. He learns their histories, participates in their rituals, and comes to understand the threats to their communities. Historically a tolerant faith, Islam has, since the early 20th century, witnessed the rise of militant, extremist sects. This development, along with the rippling effects of Western invasion, now pose existential threats to these minority faiths. And as more and more of their youth flee to the West in search of greater freedoms and job prospects, these religions face the dire possibility of extinction.*","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7557.0,"score_ratio":1.6744186047} +{"post_id":"tga4np","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Why is homophobia so universal to authoritarian regimes? Maybe this is selection bias on my part, but it feels like every brutal autocrat makes it official policy to crack down hard on the queer community. Does anthropology have any explanations for this trend?","c_root_id_A":"i10ozl9","c_root_id_B":"i10sxlj","created_at_utc_A":1647525541,"created_at_utc_B":1647527227,"score_A":58,"score_B":74,"human_ref_A":"Modern authoritarianism is rooted in a particular construction of masculinity. The role of men is seen as to protect women (and the state) from dangerous outsiders and people who want to subvert \"tradition.\" So authoritarianism is rooted in a gender ideology that sees gender as essential or biological where masculinity = strong, powerful, and strictly heterosexual. Men are assumed to be the natural leaders of society and women the natural subordinates. Men and women who deviate from the gender norm are thus considered dangerous to society and the \"natural order\" of things.","human_ref_B":"Also look at Foucault's biopolitics and Mbembe's necropolitics concepts. Basically, in the formation of states governments often engage in biological surveillance of citizens in order to control and mold the population towards a desired outcome. This involves things like immigration restriction, clandestine sterilization of undesirables, and prison-complexes to further remove deviant people from the population. Another part of this control is the social and biological reproduction of those who are ideal individuals. Think tax breaks and financial incentives for families or programs like the better baby contests of the early 1900s. People who don't reproduce offspring (due to sexual preference or otherwise) are an inherent threat to the state apparatus as they provide alternative genders, sexualities, and modes of living outside a state-sanctioned norm. For authoritarian style governments this is threatening as it is easier to convince people that state surveillance and intervention in people's private lives is normal if there is no alternative option.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1686.0,"score_ratio":1.275862069} +{"post_id":"tga4np","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Why is homophobia so universal to authoritarian regimes? Maybe this is selection bias on my part, but it feels like every brutal autocrat makes it official policy to crack down hard on the queer community. Does anthropology have any explanations for this trend?","c_root_id_A":"i12d1x9","c_root_id_B":"i123820","created_at_utc_A":1647548927,"created_at_utc_B":1647545203,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I am very interested in this question. It seems like new research around this topic is published frequently. My own interest is in psychological\/psychiatric anthropology, because at a basic level, hatred and bigotry operate inside human minds - so the question becomes, how do cultures create homophobic bigotry. Because, first of all, not all cultures care all that much about whether someone is gay, straight or bisexual (or express their sexuality differently to others). It turns out that there's an increase in narcissistic personalities in authoritarian regimes. Unfortunately, \"narcissistic\" traits are so prevalent in all industralized cultures that statistically, it may not belong in DSM in the way that it used to (it used to encompass a smaller percentage of people in the countries that use it). So **if. a person believes that they are themselves perfect and represent all that is perfect,** and further, if the culture prefers a certain set of characteristics found mostly. in narcissists (belief in being right, failure to identify with others, lack of compassion, shaky identity, easily offended, superficially charming in culturally determined way, etc) then one gets authoritarian narcissists who ban LGBQTx people, who ban divorce, who decriminalize spousal abuse and spousal rape, ban abortions. These. people believe they know more than doctors, librarians, teachers, all thinking people - but that their own ideas are not only right but inherently superior (because the ideas are held by the grandiose narcissist). People who share this intense desire to **appear culturally high status**, group together, form groups, and naturally exclude others from their group. They are likely. to. denounce homosexuality or drugs (for the same reasons, as if they are the thing), even if they are themselves gay or do drugs. They are perfect and they know how to pick out and victimize people for all kinds of things, just like unchecked schoolyard bullies. This. of course isn't saying much different than what \/w\/werekoala (wonderful screen name) said, because these personalities appeal to social frustration even in small contexts, and have contempt for the \"weak.\" The idea of the macho, manly man (who will fight and win every war) is firmly entrenched in them, even if the \"war\" is inside an office. This article was written about Hitler but it simply tries to establish that aggression and hostility are linked to narcissism (both individual and cultural), and that **thoughtlessness** is an inherent trait of the narcissist. (You know how some people put no thought into gifts and give you what they actually want for themselves? It's not a good practice when it becomes widespread in a culture; there are many names for this kind of imperialism or whatever you want to call it, but **thoughtlessness** arises in authoritarian structures, because who needs to consult their own mind? Who needs to find that inner voice of conscience that the rest of us have? Not the narcissist who identifies with their authoritarian narcissistic ruler. I didn't mean to emphasize this one personality style so much in my answer, and I am still mulling all of this over. What I do know is that when this personality style crosses the line from \"super confident person\" to \"I am always right and should be in charge of the world,\" then, I think that's pathologic and crazy. https:\/\/www.google.com\/books\/edition\/Large\\_Group\\_Psychology\/DAroDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=authoritarian+regimes+narcissism&pg=PP1&printsec=frontcover It causes something called \"splitting\" where people who identify with aggression or with narcissism place themselves completely and mentally in the hands of the aggressor\/narcissist. They want that. The other group in society recoils and cannot comprehend the controlling group's motivations and strategies. It causes chaos in homes, schools and now, the world.","human_ref_B":"My thoughts are this... Authoritarianism relies on a centrally organized authority structure where the structure suppresses or \"realigns\" individual agency. In other words, it makes the individual comply with the authority's way of thinking when the two (authority, individual) way of thinking conflict. Some of the biggest reasons to have conflict would be survival and reproduction because, well, those two are primarily of individual concern and decision making. If you can suppress the intra-group conflict between individuals about reproductive\/sexual decisions, you can address the potential conflicts regarding survival more directly. One simple way to do this in a heterosexual population is to put space between your key human resources--like military units--and those who would cause competition and potential conflict between the members and between the members and the authority. So, one difficulty mixed-gender military units have is soldiers prioritizing relationships formed between themselves over the well-being and success of the unit. This can potentially make centralized control (\"military authority\") an issue when half the unit will roll off of their primary mission to go after a missing opposite sex colleague. For an authoritarian structure, this can cause difficulties as authoritarian regimes are often dependent on compliance. Homosexuality introduces this same potential but makes it difficult to use crude solutions--\"You guys over there, you girls over there...\"--solutions to this potential conflict of priorities. Additionally, anyone who successfully manages to have and keep a relationship of this type has successfully evaded centralized authority to do so, which isn't a great thing when you're relying on overcoming individual agency. Finally, this contra-authoritarian bent can be capitalized on by others by using this relationship and internal conflict to put the individual(s) under duress and make it possible to take advantage of them from an espionage perspective. They already are going against the centralized order, forcing them to cooperate or risk being revealed (with costs from the authority) versus their own sexual\/reproductive choices. So... my take is that it's an effort to reduce uncontrollability of large groups due to intragroup conflict with central authority control based on individual agency regarding sexual (reproductive) decisions. Sort of like 12-step groups always expecting same-sex sponsors for people... except gay men who have a history of hooking up with people in authority. It makes it harder for a sponsor--a nominal guide--to tell the sponsee to change behaviors they may not want to when they're actively engaged in a sexual relationship. The motivations and conflict resolution don't work the same way...","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3724.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} +{"post_id":"kmsv2p","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What is the most unexpected anthropological discovery of the 21st century?","c_root_id_A":"ghhfyew","c_root_id_B":"ghhdt1o","created_at_utc_A":1609318959,"created_at_utc_B":1609316769,"score_A":188,"score_B":131,"human_ref_A":"I think there's been several major paradigm shifts emerging. One is in our narratives around the origins of agriculture.[1] Going from the view of originating in the Mesopotamia region and spreading outwards to a much more complex picture of peoples throughout the world periodically switching back and forth from more or less agriculture-dependent societies. We now see the complex agriculture practiced in South America and possibly even Australia as other centers of origins as well.[2] Another major shift I think is happening in the way we're seeing the level of involvement peoples had with managing their ecologies. Some have even called the Amazon rainforest a \"manufactured landscape\"[3] to represent the deep role indigenous people played in shaping the plant distributions and even the landscape.[4] A similar shift in perspective is happening with the narrative of aboriginal Australia as well [1] https:\/\/anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1111\/j.1939-3466.2010.00010.x [2] https:\/\/www.abc.net.au\/radionational\/programs\/archived\/bushtelegraph\/rethinking-indigenous-australias-agricultural-past\/5452454 [3] https:\/\/www.academia.edu\/41840345\/Timeless_Gardens_deep_indigenous_history_and_the_making_of_biodiversity_in_the_Amazon [4] https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/0959683613517401","human_ref_B":"This is a pretty subjective assessment, but I might argue for the discovery and dating of Homo naledi. At first blush, Berger and colleagues thought it may have been a transitional form between Australopithecus and Homo, as it is small, partly arboreal, and small brained, but with some hand adaptations that seem in line with early Homo. However, the dating came back as being somewhere in the 260kya - 330kya. This means there was a small, partly arboreal, small-brained hominin living concurrent with humans. That\u2019s wild to think about, and has huge implications for our understanding of the diversity of hominins in the recent past. Might also shed some light on the origins of Homo floresiensis, another fascinating discovery.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2190.0,"score_ratio":1.4351145038} +{"post_id":"kmsv2p","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What is the most unexpected anthropological discovery of the 21st century?","c_root_id_A":"ghhhkg5","c_root_id_B":"ghhicij","created_at_utc_A":1609320611,"created_at_utc_B":1609321421,"score_A":38,"score_B":105,"human_ref_A":"For me, a new reconstruction of a Homo erectus rib cage which suggests they were not as slender in the torso as we had thought. Just totally messes with how I\u2019ve been imaging them! And a reminder that even the basics of how we picture fossil species can be wrong (like feathered dinos)","human_ref_B":"In the last decade or so, a ton of research has been done on the peopling of the Americas. The theory that humans migrated from the Bering Straight Land Bridge through an ice free corridor in what\u2019s now northern Canada was the prevailing hypothesis for years, but now it\u2019s regarded as just one of three waves of migration from Beringia to the Americas. New evidence points to an earlier migration along the Pacific coast, pushing back the dates of human habitation to the Americas by thousands of years, possibly to 16,500 YBP or more. New Evidence Shows That Humans Could Have Migrated to the Americas Along the Coast Artifacts Found in North America Suggest Humans Came By Sea","labels":0,"seconds_difference":810.0,"score_ratio":2.7631578947} +{"post_id":"kmsv2p","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What is the most unexpected anthropological discovery of the 21st century?","c_root_id_A":"ghhhkg5","c_root_id_B":"ghhvzpo","created_at_utc_A":1609320611,"created_at_utc_B":1609334541,"score_A":38,"score_B":94,"human_ref_A":"For me, a new reconstruction of a Homo erectus rib cage which suggests they were not as slender in the torso as we had thought. Just totally messes with how I\u2019ve been imaging them! And a reminder that even the basics of how we picture fossil species can be wrong (like feathered dinos)","human_ref_B":"The discovery of Denisovans and their contributions to our gene pool are definitely a contender. Now that we know that our genes were shared with not only Neanderthals but also Denisovans, it paints a much more complex picture of human evolution than we previously imagined and paves the way for a more systematic approach in discovering other such exchanges. If we can pin down the \"ghost lineage\" found in West African genes, I think it's safe to say that hominid genetic exchange could become one of the defining breakthroughs of this century.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13930.0,"score_ratio":2.4736842105} +{"post_id":"kmsv2p","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What is the most unexpected anthropological discovery of the 21st century?","c_root_id_A":"ghi7sbm","c_root_id_B":"ghhhkg5","created_at_utc_A":1609342157,"created_at_utc_B":1609320611,"score_A":49,"score_B":38,"human_ref_A":"I wandered into this thread out of curiosity as someone who studied anthropology but no longer works directly in the field. I have to say, it is interesting to observe all of the comments here about discoveries related to early human evolution and diaspora. These findings are certainly important (and cool), but are these the most important contributions of anthropology to modern society? I acknowledge that\u2019s a big philosophical question, and the findings highlighted in this thread do inform discourse on humanity in the long run. Yet when I look around at all of the chaos surrounding us, it seems to me that anthropology would have a lot to contribute to conversations about climate change, the pandemic, and political division - which are all at least in part massive cultural events. I\u2019m just curious if other folks, maybe more current in the field than I, know of examples of relevant anthropological work in this area. One example that comes to mind for me is the book Strangers in Their Own Land by Arlie Hochschild. While she is a sociologist, the book is essentially an ethnographic study of Trumpism in Louisiana and it really informed my thinking about Populist ideology. I\u2019d love to know about similar work that explores current events from an anthropological bent. So - maybe not a question about groundbreaking work per se, but would love some thoughts from this sub on any accessible anthropological studies that inform current events!","human_ref_B":"For me, a new reconstruction of a Homo erectus rib cage which suggests they were not as slender in the torso as we had thought. Just totally messes with how I\u2019ve been imaging them! And a reminder that even the basics of how we picture fossil species can be wrong (like feathered dinos)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21546.0,"score_ratio":1.2894736842} +{"post_id":"izua43","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Has there been any research connecting medieval elf-abduction narratives (changelings, etc) with 20th century stories of UFOs and alien probes?","c_root_id_A":"g74fiac","c_root_id_B":"g79saf9","created_at_utc_A":1601425440,"created_at_utc_B":1601546656,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I can not find a quite interesting article on fairy or elf abductions perhaps in ireland or another part of the british aisles. Basically families would put out sickly children that were deemed \"fairy children' and overnight they would dissapear. The families simply could not support a sick child. Others would starve. The people developed a set of myths involving changelings etc to justify putting them out to die. As they were I imagine, christians at the time.... This was a scholarly article and not the more innocent depiction of fairies and changlings one usually reads. So I do think a subset of early abduction stories may have a aspect to them that reflects killing a weak family member that can not be supported. If the abducted one is never found or found dead. \"Accidentally' rolling over in bed on an infant was another...way till the church started advising no kids in same bed. Not an anthropologist","human_ref_B":"*Passport to Magonia* by Jacques Vallee is basically the definitive work on this. There are loads of books I know covering the topic, though, among which are *Thieves in the Night* by Joshua Cutchin and *The Unidentified* by Jerome Clark. I\u2019ve written essays on the topic of the evolution of the \u2018fairy\u2019 archetype from nature spirits to little green men. This is sort of my area of expertise.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":121216.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"lrmtbm","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Has there been a group of people who have adapted to a nocturnal or \u201cunusual\u201d sleeping routines? I was just wondering if there is evidence to support a group of people who have either been nocturnal or had an usual sleeping routines. What evidence would be used to show this? And would it have any biological effects?","c_root_id_A":"gon780d","c_root_id_B":"gon7dn3","created_at_utc_A":1614210737,"created_at_utc_B":1614210813,"score_A":31,"score_B":165,"human_ref_A":"Not a direct answer, more a direction to look into with new eyes and perhaps better rigor but perhaps many Africans including the Taureg, Dogon, and early Egyptians will have a decent body of published work that can help you start looking into it? Especially the pre-colonial skywatchers\/astronomers, navigators, and mariners plus some specific medicine\/spiritual socieites. From there I'm sure several indigenous peoples may have something similar too though with many, their stories and history are a mix of oral and petroglyphic so relationships and personal accounts from appropriate knowledge holders will be contingent on your own credibility to them and their culture. Most of my thoughts come from anecdote and inference as this isn't an area I studied closely to directly contend with literature and haven't been with the cultures enough to speak with significant semblance of understanding in their worldviews and epistemic cosmologies so you'll have to look further for yourself. I've heard the Taureg sometimes navigated by night and focusing on the stars was essential for knowing distances and setting courses. The Dogon were noted by some for a dance that accurately replicates the dynamics of two stars orbiting (Sirius A and B), before Western astronomy developed telescopes that could discern and confirm the existence of a twin star system. Across Africa there are a lot of overlaps in astronomical observation across the cultures, and it's likely a sort of caste of skywatchers that were at least partly nocturnal could have contributed to these advancements in some of their cultures. I haven't followed closely so the claims from the person attributed to reporting the Sign may not be supported by the academic community and it seems like a pretty old (1980) publication so the likelihood for colonial biases that invalidate or erase indigenous epistemologies is very strong. Lots may have shifted in interpretation and validation, and gauging from what I know about scholarly representation among various First Nations through native colleagues and peers who are in academia and the sciences including Astronomy, they too are constantly fighting to We're probably only starting to see more scholars from the cultures that are being studied show up in western publications. https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/242865509_The_Sirius_Mystery More recently, this may give you a start: https:\/\/casperplanetarium.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/SkywatchersofAfricaTeacherGuide.pdf https:\/\/africa.si.edu\/exhibits\/cosmos\/skywatchers.html It may also be beneficial to check out the NASA skywatchers series, and also the Anishinaanek-led skywatchers program too as many first nations are working to reclaim and assert their pre-colonial knowledge and sciences while teaching how non-western\/colonial science is and was done through their own ways, creation stories, linguistic epistemologies and cultural understandings. https:\/\/thewalrus.ca\/space-teaching-indigenous-star-stories\/ https:\/\/www.lakesuperior.com\/the-lake\/natural-world\/native-skywatchers-revives-traditional-constellations\/ https:\/\/ingeniumcanada.org\/channel\/articles\/we-come-from-the-stars-how-indigenous-peoples-are-taking-back-astronomy https:\/\/www.cbc.ca\/radio\/unreserved\/we-come-from-the-stars-indigenous-astronomy-astronauts-and-star-stories-1.5861762\/indigenous-astronomies-and-astro-colonialism-1.5865387 https:\/\/www.cbc.ca\/radio\/unreserved\/we-come-from-the-stars-indigenous-astronomy-astronauts-and-star-stories-1.5861762","human_ref_B":"This is going to be vague (sorry mods) and I\u2019m not quite sure if it\u2019s what you\u2019re looking for, but I remember being in Eduardo Kohn\u2019s classes and he spoke about how when he was researching for his book, the people in Ecuador where he was staying would wake up in the middle of the night (2-3am) to discuss their dreams before going back to sleep. You might be interested in some of his work. Maybe check out his book \u201cHow Forests think\u201d if you\u2019re interested?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":76.0,"score_ratio":5.3225806452} +{"post_id":"lrmtbm","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Has there been a group of people who have adapted to a nocturnal or \u201cunusual\u201d sleeping routines? I was just wondering if there is evidence to support a group of people who have either been nocturnal or had an usual sleeping routines. What evidence would be used to show this? And would it have any biological effects?","c_root_id_A":"gonjvmg","c_root_id_B":"gon780d","created_at_utc_A":1614216821,"created_at_utc_B":1614210737,"score_A":85,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"You might wanna look into biphasic (or segmented\/interrupted sleep). It's the idea of sleeping in 2 'shifts' of sleep for a couple of hours instead of 8 uninterrupted hours. There's a lot of evidence that it was the norm in many places before the industrial revolution (and maybe still is). It also happens in military situations but I suspect that's not entirely what you're after. Sorry I don't have time to go through a lot of sources, but here's a couple for a start: 1 | 2 | 3 Also I have absolutely no sources for this, but maybe people in the arctic historically had different sleeping cycles, since the hours of daylight vary dramatically?","human_ref_B":"Not a direct answer, more a direction to look into with new eyes and perhaps better rigor but perhaps many Africans including the Taureg, Dogon, and early Egyptians will have a decent body of published work that can help you start looking into it? Especially the pre-colonial skywatchers\/astronomers, navigators, and mariners plus some specific medicine\/spiritual socieites. From there I'm sure several indigenous peoples may have something similar too though with many, their stories and history are a mix of oral and petroglyphic so relationships and personal accounts from appropriate knowledge holders will be contingent on your own credibility to them and their culture. Most of my thoughts come from anecdote and inference as this isn't an area I studied closely to directly contend with literature and haven't been with the cultures enough to speak with significant semblance of understanding in their worldviews and epistemic cosmologies so you'll have to look further for yourself. I've heard the Taureg sometimes navigated by night and focusing on the stars was essential for knowing distances and setting courses. The Dogon were noted by some for a dance that accurately replicates the dynamics of two stars orbiting (Sirius A and B), before Western astronomy developed telescopes that could discern and confirm the existence of a twin star system. Across Africa there are a lot of overlaps in astronomical observation across the cultures, and it's likely a sort of caste of skywatchers that were at least partly nocturnal could have contributed to these advancements in some of their cultures. I haven't followed closely so the claims from the person attributed to reporting the Sign may not be supported by the academic community and it seems like a pretty old (1980) publication so the likelihood for colonial biases that invalidate or erase indigenous epistemologies is very strong. Lots may have shifted in interpretation and validation, and gauging from what I know about scholarly representation among various First Nations through native colleagues and peers who are in academia and the sciences including Astronomy, they too are constantly fighting to We're probably only starting to see more scholars from the cultures that are being studied show up in western publications. https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/242865509_The_Sirius_Mystery More recently, this may give you a start: https:\/\/casperplanetarium.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/SkywatchersofAfricaTeacherGuide.pdf https:\/\/africa.si.edu\/exhibits\/cosmos\/skywatchers.html It may also be beneficial to check out the NASA skywatchers series, and also the Anishinaanek-led skywatchers program too as many first nations are working to reclaim and assert their pre-colonial knowledge and sciences while teaching how non-western\/colonial science is and was done through their own ways, creation stories, linguistic epistemologies and cultural understandings. https:\/\/thewalrus.ca\/space-teaching-indigenous-star-stories\/ https:\/\/www.lakesuperior.com\/the-lake\/natural-world\/native-skywatchers-revives-traditional-constellations\/ https:\/\/ingeniumcanada.org\/channel\/articles\/we-come-from-the-stars-how-indigenous-peoples-are-taking-back-astronomy https:\/\/www.cbc.ca\/radio\/unreserved\/we-come-from-the-stars-indigenous-astronomy-astronauts-and-star-stories-1.5861762\/indigenous-astronomies-and-astro-colonialism-1.5865387 https:\/\/www.cbc.ca\/radio\/unreserved\/we-come-from-the-stars-indigenous-astronomy-astronauts-and-star-stories-1.5861762","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6084.0,"score_ratio":2.7419354839} +{"post_id":"n0qbx6","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"What do societies in the most inhospitable environments do for fun? I'm talking about places with barely any animals and no vegetation whatsoever like the northernmost parts of Canada or people in the deserts of Australia. Of course there would be storytelling and music but is there anything else their lifestyle allows for?","c_root_id_A":"gw96idu","c_root_id_B":"gw8xoa4","created_at_utc_A":1619665929,"created_at_utc_B":1619661406,"score_A":77,"score_B":62,"human_ref_A":"First, storytelling, music\/dance, and crafting of decorative items is going to account for the vast majority of entertainment for any non-modern society regardless of how many resources they have. Second, lots of times activities necessary for survival are considered enjoyable. Many people enjoy hunting, fishing, working with livestock, etc. Third, even in the most inhospitable environments there are still enough resources to do decorative crafting. BBC\/British Museum did a series on the history of the world through 100 objects. The first 3 items were tools. The 4th item was the first piece of art. It was crafted in the deep arctic. It was a bit of woolly mammoth tusk carved into a reindeer\/caribou swimming across a body of water. https:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/programmes\/b00pwn7r People of the arctic made tons of carvings out of bone, horn, tooth, and tusk. AND, if you are talking about modern day people living in those areas, then just like the other person cited, pretty much anything\/everything modern people do - so video games, TV, movies, books, writing, painting, etc. Yea there might be less coffee shops to go listen to poetry readings, less breweries and bars to go listen to bands at, and no big concert halls for big name bands or touring broadway shows. But the flip side is, a lot more recreational outdoor activities such as snowmobiling or dirtbiking which you can start right out your back door rather than having to travel someplace to do.","human_ref_B":"Indigenous populations in remote territories of Canada typically have different territory-based activities they do during different times of the year. There are different seasons for fishing different types of fish, a season for whaling or sealing, a season for harvesting berries, etc. Snowshoeing, dog sledding, ice fishing, camping, snowmobiling, shooting, trapping are all common activities in the north. Weaving, carving, painting, canoeing, fishing, hunting, trapping, and harvesting are traditionally popular activities in the PNW. Of course each culture also has its own activities such as storytelling, music, dancing, sports, etc. And, like most of us, video games, social media, movies\/tv, etc. Edit: I understand that the PNW is anything but inhospitable, but I use it as an example of activities determined by the territory and its resources. People in very inhospitable areas, such as the far north or desert, are typically Indigenous populations who use survival techniques that have been passed down for thousands of years.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4523.0,"score_ratio":1.2419354839} +{"post_id":"g47ll8","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Genetic analysis of Malagasy people have shown that the island of Madagascar was settled by Austronesians from Indonesia approximately 1,200 years ago. What is known about this migration and have any cultural or linguistic elements survive in Malagasy culture to this day? Here is a paper that talks about the genetic information.","c_root_id_A":"fnwamwh","c_root_id_B":"fnwd0v7","created_at_utc_A":1587314723,"created_at_utc_B":1587316039,"score_A":20,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"I think that Robert E. Dewar and Alison F. Richard\u2019s paper \u201cMadagascar: A History of Arrivals, What Happened, and Will Happen Next*\u201d (2012) would answer your questions or at least put you on track to answer them :) I wrote an essay related to Madagascar and that paper was quite helpful.","human_ref_B":"Actually, linguistic analysis showed this one first -- the geneticists caught up on this in the late 2000s. Most linguists think that Malagasy (the language of Madagascar) came out of Borneo around 2000 years ago, probably travelling around the coast. The canonical reference for this is a book by Sandar Adelaar, and I think you can get a copy here. You may also find this paper interesting. And there was indeed a lot of contact with Bantu languages, but the culture and language are still very Austronesian.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1316.0,"score_ratio":1.55} +{"post_id":"g47ll8","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Genetic analysis of Malagasy people have shown that the island of Madagascar was settled by Austronesians from Indonesia approximately 1,200 years ago. What is known about this migration and have any cultural or linguistic elements survive in Malagasy culture to this day? Here is a paper that talks about the genetic information.","c_root_id_A":"fnwuo5z","c_root_id_B":"fnwamwh","created_at_utc_A":1587325794,"created_at_utc_B":1587314723,"score_A":21,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"Fire pistons are a clever tool that ignites tinder using compressive heating, widespread in Southeast Asia and thought to be an austronesian invention. Outside of Asia, they are only found in Madagascar (until Europeans independently invented them, probably as a side effect of air gun technology), and are thought to have been brought there by the ancient austronesian migrants.","human_ref_B":"I think that Robert E. Dewar and Alison F. Richard\u2019s paper \u201cMadagascar: A History of Arrivals, What Happened, and Will Happen Next*\u201d (2012) would answer your questions or at least put you on track to answer them :) I wrote an essay related to Madagascar and that paper was quite helpful.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11071.0,"score_ratio":1.05} +{"post_id":"xkenx8","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How long ago would I (a European) have to go back to find my mutual ancestors with the Japanese\/Asians? I am not certain if the question makes sense, however, I was not sure as to how to word it. I do believe it's an interesting one. So I was wondering. I am Polish, all my traceable ancestors have been Polish, and Poland historically has had very little contact with Japan. As such, it makes it extremely unlikely I have any Japanese ties. But we are the same species, right? So, logically speaking, I must share mutual ancestors with them. Am I mistaken? How long ago would that have been? How far back would I need to go to find my common ancestor with them? But this question does not only concern the Japanese, I am curious about all people of that region, too. However, I focused on Japan, since it used to be an isolate country, and its language is a language isolate (meaning, it's unrelated to any others), so it has absolutely 0 in common with Polish, which made me curious as to how long ago would these two have diverged. I hope my question is not dumb. I just wonder when my last common ancestor with those people would have been.","c_root_id_A":"ipe0ldg","c_root_id_B":"ipeax8j","created_at_utc_A":1663797088,"created_at_utc_B":1663801475,"score_A":41,"score_B":154,"human_ref_A":"You don't need very much movement of peoples for everyone to have a common ancestor just a few thousand years ago. Just the occasional admixture with neighboring villages, neighboring polities, movement along trade routes, etc. No one has a real answer for you, but researchers have tried to model humanity's most recent common ancestor and have come up with as little as a few thousand years. Don't remember the exact number, but say three thousand. Note that this is a different question than most recent *genetically detectable* common ancestor; a single admixture event does not need to leave any genetic trace after several generations. And of course it's also a different question than a population bottleneck. The latter two have received more research and speculation and I would imagine you will get answers along those lines.","human_ref_B":"The most recent male ancestor of all humans the \u2018y-chromosomal Adam\u2019 is roughly 200-300kya with the \u2018mitochondrial Eve\u2019 the most recent female ancestor of all humans being perhaps 100-230kya. Now, the connection between you and a given Japanese person could be much much closer. Say, a Mongolian had two sons, one became a trader and settled in Japan and became absorbed into the population, the other west West on horseback as part of the Mongol Empire and settled in Poland and eventually his bloodline was absorbed. This is a feasible scenario for the late 13th century making it less than a thousand years ago that your ancestry could\u2019ve diverged from a given Japanese person\u2019s assuming none of your more recent ancestors spent time there in a religious or military function perhaps. Edit: \/u\/kcazllerraf corrected me","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4387.0,"score_ratio":3.756097561} +{"post_id":"xkenx8","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How long ago would I (a European) have to go back to find my mutual ancestors with the Japanese\/Asians? I am not certain if the question makes sense, however, I was not sure as to how to word it. I do believe it's an interesting one. So I was wondering. I am Polish, all my traceable ancestors have been Polish, and Poland historically has had very little contact with Japan. As such, it makes it extremely unlikely I have any Japanese ties. But we are the same species, right? So, logically speaking, I must share mutual ancestors with them. Am I mistaken? How long ago would that have been? How far back would I need to go to find my common ancestor with them? But this question does not only concern the Japanese, I am curious about all people of that region, too. However, I focused on Japan, since it used to be an isolate country, and its language is a language isolate (meaning, it's unrelated to any others), so it has absolutely 0 in common with Polish, which made me curious as to how long ago would these two have diverged. I hope my question is not dumb. I just wonder when my last common ancestor with those people would have been.","c_root_id_A":"ipe06ns","c_root_id_B":"ipeax8j","created_at_utc_A":1663796922,"created_at_utc_B":1663801475,"score_A":31,"score_B":154,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m not sure I understand your question fully, but human settlement \u201cparted\u201d ways around 70,000BC-50,000BC in todays Middle East. From there a first wave of Homo sapiens \u201cwent\u201d( or naturally expanded) over the Caucasus to Europe, while the expansion towards Asia was faster. So that would be the earliest common ground with the Japanese genetically speaking, but of course throughout history human migration was happening constantly. I hope this answers your question.","human_ref_B":"The most recent male ancestor of all humans the \u2018y-chromosomal Adam\u2019 is roughly 200-300kya with the \u2018mitochondrial Eve\u2019 the most recent female ancestor of all humans being perhaps 100-230kya. Now, the connection between you and a given Japanese person could be much much closer. Say, a Mongolian had two sons, one became a trader and settled in Japan and became absorbed into the population, the other west West on horseback as part of the Mongol Empire and settled in Poland and eventually his bloodline was absorbed. This is a feasible scenario for the late 13th century making it less than a thousand years ago that your ancestry could\u2019ve diverged from a given Japanese person\u2019s assuming none of your more recent ancestors spent time there in a religious or military function perhaps. Edit: \/u\/kcazllerraf corrected me","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4553.0,"score_ratio":4.9677419355} +{"post_id":"xkenx8","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How long ago would I (a European) have to go back to find my mutual ancestors with the Japanese\/Asians? I am not certain if the question makes sense, however, I was not sure as to how to word it. I do believe it's an interesting one. So I was wondering. I am Polish, all my traceable ancestors have been Polish, and Poland historically has had very little contact with Japan. As such, it makes it extremely unlikely I have any Japanese ties. But we are the same species, right? So, logically speaking, I must share mutual ancestors with them. Am I mistaken? How long ago would that have been? How far back would I need to go to find my common ancestor with them? But this question does not only concern the Japanese, I am curious about all people of that region, too. However, I focused on Japan, since it used to be an isolate country, and its language is a language isolate (meaning, it's unrelated to any others), so it has absolutely 0 in common with Polish, which made me curious as to how long ago would these two have diverged. I hope my question is not dumb. I just wonder when my last common ancestor with those people would have been.","c_root_id_A":"ipdkc98","c_root_id_B":"ipeax8j","created_at_utc_A":1663790685,"created_at_utc_B":1663801475,"score_A":8,"score_B":154,"human_ref_A":"Not sure in this specific configuration, but you should find at least one common ancestor with rest of humanity by the time you reach 50th generation.","human_ref_B":"The most recent male ancestor of all humans the \u2018y-chromosomal Adam\u2019 is roughly 200-300kya with the \u2018mitochondrial Eve\u2019 the most recent female ancestor of all humans being perhaps 100-230kya. Now, the connection between you and a given Japanese person could be much much closer. Say, a Mongolian had two sons, one became a trader and settled in Japan and became absorbed into the population, the other west West on horseback as part of the Mongol Empire and settled in Poland and eventually his bloodline was absorbed. This is a feasible scenario for the late 13th century making it less than a thousand years ago that your ancestry could\u2019ve diverged from a given Japanese person\u2019s assuming none of your more recent ancestors spent time there in a religious or military function perhaps. Edit: \/u\/kcazllerraf corrected me","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10790.0,"score_ratio":19.25} +{"post_id":"xkenx8","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How long ago would I (a European) have to go back to find my mutual ancestors with the Japanese\/Asians? I am not certain if the question makes sense, however, I was not sure as to how to word it. I do believe it's an interesting one. So I was wondering. I am Polish, all my traceable ancestors have been Polish, and Poland historically has had very little contact with Japan. As such, it makes it extremely unlikely I have any Japanese ties. But we are the same species, right? So, logically speaking, I must share mutual ancestors with them. Am I mistaken? How long ago would that have been? How far back would I need to go to find my common ancestor with them? But this question does not only concern the Japanese, I am curious about all people of that region, too. However, I focused on Japan, since it used to be an isolate country, and its language is a language isolate (meaning, it's unrelated to any others), so it has absolutely 0 in common with Polish, which made me curious as to how long ago would these two have diverged. I hope my question is not dumb. I just wonder when my last common ancestor with those people would have been.","c_root_id_A":"ipeax8j","c_root_id_B":"ipe3gm0","created_at_utc_A":1663801475,"created_at_utc_B":1663798284,"score_A":154,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The most recent male ancestor of all humans the \u2018y-chromosomal Adam\u2019 is roughly 200-300kya with the \u2018mitochondrial Eve\u2019 the most recent female ancestor of all humans being perhaps 100-230kya. Now, the connection between you and a given Japanese person could be much much closer. Say, a Mongolian had two sons, one became a trader and settled in Japan and became absorbed into the population, the other west West on horseback as part of the Mongol Empire and settled in Poland and eventually his bloodline was absorbed. This is a feasible scenario for the late 13th century making it less than a thousand years ago that your ancestry could\u2019ve diverged from a given Japanese person\u2019s assuming none of your more recent ancestors spent time there in a religious or military function perhaps. Edit: \/u\/kcazllerraf corrected me","human_ref_B":"The question makes perfect sense. I don't know the precise answer, but if you go back around 160K years (it is strongly conjectured) you find a mutual ancestor of you and _any_ human alive today. Literally everybody alive today is a descendant of this guy. If you are interested in Europeans + Japaneses only, you need less going back, but probably not _drastically_ less, considering how far these groups are from each other. Let's say 80-100K years, for the sake of the argument. That's a very long time ago. No cities, no agriculture, and no civilization, for this shared great-great-great-etc-grandfather of both you and mr. Suzuki. (yes, \"father\", not \"mother\". We know that much. The latest common great-granmother lived a lot earlier).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3191.0,"score_ratio":51.3333333333} +{"post_id":"xkenx8","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How long ago would I (a European) have to go back to find my mutual ancestors with the Japanese\/Asians? I am not certain if the question makes sense, however, I was not sure as to how to word it. I do believe it's an interesting one. So I was wondering. I am Polish, all my traceable ancestors have been Polish, and Poland historically has had very little contact with Japan. As such, it makes it extremely unlikely I have any Japanese ties. But we are the same species, right? So, logically speaking, I must share mutual ancestors with them. Am I mistaken? How long ago would that have been? How far back would I need to go to find my common ancestor with them? But this question does not only concern the Japanese, I am curious about all people of that region, too. However, I focused on Japan, since it used to be an isolate country, and its language is a language isolate (meaning, it's unrelated to any others), so it has absolutely 0 in common with Polish, which made me curious as to how long ago would these two have diverged. I hope my question is not dumb. I just wonder when my last common ancestor with those people would have been.","c_root_id_A":"ipee4hn","c_root_id_B":"ipe0ldg","created_at_utc_A":1663802895,"created_at_utc_B":1663797088,"score_A":84,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"This is called the \u2018genetic isopoint\u2019, and for humans it\u2019s very recent, only a few thousand years ago: -\thttps:\/\/www.scientificamerican.com\/article\/humans-are-all-more-closely-related-than-we-commonly-think\/ There are, of course, some populations that (until the last couple hundred years) were a bit more isolated fir a longer amount of time than others (eg, aboriginal Australians), but on the whole humans have been remarkably mixed and thus closely related for almost all of our history and prehistory. In addition to the above article and term, look up terms like \u201cmitochondrial Eve\u201d, \u201cY-chromosome Adam\u201d, or \u201cmost recent common ancestor of modern humans\u201d. Each will lead you down a slightly different rabbit hole into the same warren.","human_ref_B":"You don't need very much movement of peoples for everyone to have a common ancestor just a few thousand years ago. Just the occasional admixture with neighboring villages, neighboring polities, movement along trade routes, etc. No one has a real answer for you, but researchers have tried to model humanity's most recent common ancestor and have come up with as little as a few thousand years. Don't remember the exact number, but say three thousand. Note that this is a different question than most recent *genetically detectable* common ancestor; a single admixture event does not need to leave any genetic trace after several generations. And of course it's also a different question than a population bottleneck. The latter two have received more research and speculation and I would imagine you will get answers along those lines.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5807.0,"score_ratio":2.0487804878} +{"post_id":"xkenx8","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How long ago would I (a European) have to go back to find my mutual ancestors with the Japanese\/Asians? I am not certain if the question makes sense, however, I was not sure as to how to word it. I do believe it's an interesting one. So I was wondering. I am Polish, all my traceable ancestors have been Polish, and Poland historically has had very little contact with Japan. As such, it makes it extremely unlikely I have any Japanese ties. But we are the same species, right? So, logically speaking, I must share mutual ancestors with them. Am I mistaken? How long ago would that have been? How far back would I need to go to find my common ancestor with them? But this question does not only concern the Japanese, I am curious about all people of that region, too. However, I focused on Japan, since it used to be an isolate country, and its language is a language isolate (meaning, it's unrelated to any others), so it has absolutely 0 in common with Polish, which made me curious as to how long ago would these two have diverged. I hope my question is not dumb. I just wonder when my last common ancestor with those people would have been.","c_root_id_A":"ipee4hn","c_root_id_B":"ipe06ns","created_at_utc_A":1663802895,"created_at_utc_B":1663796922,"score_A":84,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"This is called the \u2018genetic isopoint\u2019, and for humans it\u2019s very recent, only a few thousand years ago: -\thttps:\/\/www.scientificamerican.com\/article\/humans-are-all-more-closely-related-than-we-commonly-think\/ There are, of course, some populations that (until the last couple hundred years) were a bit more isolated fir a longer amount of time than others (eg, aboriginal Australians), but on the whole humans have been remarkably mixed and thus closely related for almost all of our history and prehistory. In addition to the above article and term, look up terms like \u201cmitochondrial Eve\u201d, \u201cY-chromosome Adam\u201d, or \u201cmost recent common ancestor of modern humans\u201d. Each will lead you down a slightly different rabbit hole into the same warren.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m not sure I understand your question fully, but human settlement \u201cparted\u201d ways around 70,000BC-50,000BC in todays Middle East. From there a first wave of Homo sapiens \u201cwent\u201d( or naturally expanded) over the Caucasus to Europe, while the expansion towards Asia was faster. So that would be the earliest common ground with the Japanese genetically speaking, but of course throughout history human migration was happening constantly. I hope this answers your question.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5973.0,"score_ratio":2.7096774194} +{"post_id":"xkenx8","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How long ago would I (a European) have to go back to find my mutual ancestors with the Japanese\/Asians? I am not certain if the question makes sense, however, I was not sure as to how to word it. I do believe it's an interesting one. So I was wondering. I am Polish, all my traceable ancestors have been Polish, and Poland historically has had very little contact with Japan. As such, it makes it extremely unlikely I have any Japanese ties. But we are the same species, right? So, logically speaking, I must share mutual ancestors with them. Am I mistaken? How long ago would that have been? How far back would I need to go to find my common ancestor with them? But this question does not only concern the Japanese, I am curious about all people of that region, too. However, I focused on Japan, since it used to be an isolate country, and its language is a language isolate (meaning, it's unrelated to any others), so it has absolutely 0 in common with Polish, which made me curious as to how long ago would these two have diverged. I hope my question is not dumb. I just wonder when my last common ancestor with those people would have been.","c_root_id_A":"ipee4hn","c_root_id_B":"ipdkc98","created_at_utc_A":1663802895,"created_at_utc_B":1663790685,"score_A":84,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"This is called the \u2018genetic isopoint\u2019, and for humans it\u2019s very recent, only a few thousand years ago: -\thttps:\/\/www.scientificamerican.com\/article\/humans-are-all-more-closely-related-than-we-commonly-think\/ There are, of course, some populations that (until the last couple hundred years) were a bit more isolated fir a longer amount of time than others (eg, aboriginal Australians), but on the whole humans have been remarkably mixed and thus closely related for almost all of our history and prehistory. In addition to the above article and term, look up terms like \u201cmitochondrial Eve\u201d, \u201cY-chromosome Adam\u201d, or \u201cmost recent common ancestor of modern humans\u201d. Each will lead you down a slightly different rabbit hole into the same warren.","human_ref_B":"Not sure in this specific configuration, but you should find at least one common ancestor with rest of humanity by the time you reach 50th generation.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12210.0,"score_ratio":10.5} +{"post_id":"xkenx8","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How long ago would I (a European) have to go back to find my mutual ancestors with the Japanese\/Asians? I am not certain if the question makes sense, however, I was not sure as to how to word it. I do believe it's an interesting one. So I was wondering. I am Polish, all my traceable ancestors have been Polish, and Poland historically has had very little contact with Japan. As such, it makes it extremely unlikely I have any Japanese ties. But we are the same species, right? So, logically speaking, I must share mutual ancestors with them. Am I mistaken? How long ago would that have been? How far back would I need to go to find my common ancestor with them? But this question does not only concern the Japanese, I am curious about all people of that region, too. However, I focused on Japan, since it used to be an isolate country, and its language is a language isolate (meaning, it's unrelated to any others), so it has absolutely 0 in common with Polish, which made me curious as to how long ago would these two have diverged. I hope my question is not dumb. I just wonder when my last common ancestor with those people would have been.","c_root_id_A":"ipe3gm0","c_root_id_B":"ipee4hn","created_at_utc_A":1663798284,"created_at_utc_B":1663802895,"score_A":3,"score_B":84,"human_ref_A":"The question makes perfect sense. I don't know the precise answer, but if you go back around 160K years (it is strongly conjectured) you find a mutual ancestor of you and _any_ human alive today. Literally everybody alive today is a descendant of this guy. If you are interested in Europeans + Japaneses only, you need less going back, but probably not _drastically_ less, considering how far these groups are from each other. Let's say 80-100K years, for the sake of the argument. That's a very long time ago. No cities, no agriculture, and no civilization, for this shared great-great-great-etc-grandfather of both you and mr. Suzuki. (yes, \"father\", not \"mother\". We know that much. The latest common great-granmother lived a lot earlier).","human_ref_B":"This is called the \u2018genetic isopoint\u2019, and for humans it\u2019s very recent, only a few thousand years ago: -\thttps:\/\/www.scientificamerican.com\/article\/humans-are-all-more-closely-related-than-we-commonly-think\/ There are, of course, some populations that (until the last couple hundred years) were a bit more isolated fir a longer amount of time than others (eg, aboriginal Australians), but on the whole humans have been remarkably mixed and thus closely related for almost all of our history and prehistory. In addition to the above article and term, look up terms like \u201cmitochondrial Eve\u201d, \u201cY-chromosome Adam\u201d, or \u201cmost recent common ancestor of modern humans\u201d. Each will lead you down a slightly different rabbit hole into the same warren.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4611.0,"score_ratio":28.0} +{"post_id":"xkenx8","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How long ago would I (a European) have to go back to find my mutual ancestors with the Japanese\/Asians? I am not certain if the question makes sense, however, I was not sure as to how to word it. I do believe it's an interesting one. So I was wondering. I am Polish, all my traceable ancestors have been Polish, and Poland historically has had very little contact with Japan. As such, it makes it extremely unlikely I have any Japanese ties. But we are the same species, right? So, logically speaking, I must share mutual ancestors with them. Am I mistaken? How long ago would that have been? How far back would I need to go to find my common ancestor with them? But this question does not only concern the Japanese, I am curious about all people of that region, too. However, I focused on Japan, since it used to be an isolate country, and its language is a language isolate (meaning, it's unrelated to any others), so it has absolutely 0 in common with Polish, which made me curious as to how long ago would these two have diverged. I hope my question is not dumb. I just wonder when my last common ancestor with those people would have been.","c_root_id_A":"ipe06ns","c_root_id_B":"ipe0ldg","created_at_utc_A":1663796922,"created_at_utc_B":1663797088,"score_A":31,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m not sure I understand your question fully, but human settlement \u201cparted\u201d ways around 70,000BC-50,000BC in todays Middle East. From there a first wave of Homo sapiens \u201cwent\u201d( or naturally expanded) over the Caucasus to Europe, while the expansion towards Asia was faster. So that would be the earliest common ground with the Japanese genetically speaking, but of course throughout history human migration was happening constantly. I hope this answers your question.","human_ref_B":"You don't need very much movement of peoples for everyone to have a common ancestor just a few thousand years ago. Just the occasional admixture with neighboring villages, neighboring polities, movement along trade routes, etc. No one has a real answer for you, but researchers have tried to model humanity's most recent common ancestor and have come up with as little as a few thousand years. Don't remember the exact number, but say three thousand. Note that this is a different question than most recent *genetically detectable* common ancestor; a single admixture event does not need to leave any genetic trace after several generations. And of course it's also a different question than a population bottleneck. The latter two have received more research and speculation and I would imagine you will get answers along those lines.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":166.0,"score_ratio":1.3225806452} +{"post_id":"xkenx8","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How long ago would I (a European) have to go back to find my mutual ancestors with the Japanese\/Asians? I am not certain if the question makes sense, however, I was not sure as to how to word it. I do believe it's an interesting one. So I was wondering. I am Polish, all my traceable ancestors have been Polish, and Poland historically has had very little contact with Japan. As such, it makes it extremely unlikely I have any Japanese ties. But we are the same species, right? So, logically speaking, I must share mutual ancestors with them. Am I mistaken? How long ago would that have been? How far back would I need to go to find my common ancestor with them? But this question does not only concern the Japanese, I am curious about all people of that region, too. However, I focused on Japan, since it used to be an isolate country, and its language is a language isolate (meaning, it's unrelated to any others), so it has absolutely 0 in common with Polish, which made me curious as to how long ago would these two have diverged. I hope my question is not dumb. I just wonder when my last common ancestor with those people would have been.","c_root_id_A":"ipdkc98","c_root_id_B":"ipe0ldg","created_at_utc_A":1663790685,"created_at_utc_B":1663797088,"score_A":8,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"Not sure in this specific configuration, but you should find at least one common ancestor with rest of humanity by the time you reach 50th generation.","human_ref_B":"You don't need very much movement of peoples for everyone to have a common ancestor just a few thousand years ago. Just the occasional admixture with neighboring villages, neighboring polities, movement along trade routes, etc. No one has a real answer for you, but researchers have tried to model humanity's most recent common ancestor and have come up with as little as a few thousand years. Don't remember the exact number, but say three thousand. Note that this is a different question than most recent *genetically detectable* common ancestor; a single admixture event does not need to leave any genetic trace after several generations. And of course it's also a different question than a population bottleneck. The latter two have received more research and speculation and I would imagine you will get answers along those lines.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6403.0,"score_ratio":5.125} +{"post_id":"xkenx8","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How long ago would I (a European) have to go back to find my mutual ancestors with the Japanese\/Asians? I am not certain if the question makes sense, however, I was not sure as to how to word it. I do believe it's an interesting one. So I was wondering. I am Polish, all my traceable ancestors have been Polish, and Poland historically has had very little contact with Japan. As such, it makes it extremely unlikely I have any Japanese ties. But we are the same species, right? So, logically speaking, I must share mutual ancestors with them. Am I mistaken? How long ago would that have been? How far back would I need to go to find my common ancestor with them? But this question does not only concern the Japanese, I am curious about all people of that region, too. However, I focused on Japan, since it used to be an isolate country, and its language is a language isolate (meaning, it's unrelated to any others), so it has absolutely 0 in common with Polish, which made me curious as to how long ago would these two have diverged. I hope my question is not dumb. I just wonder when my last common ancestor with those people would have been.","c_root_id_A":"ipdkc98","c_root_id_B":"ipe06ns","created_at_utc_A":1663790685,"created_at_utc_B":1663796922,"score_A":8,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"Not sure in this specific configuration, but you should find at least one common ancestor with rest of humanity by the time you reach 50th generation.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m not sure I understand your question fully, but human settlement \u201cparted\u201d ways around 70,000BC-50,000BC in todays Middle East. From there a first wave of Homo sapiens \u201cwent\u201d( or naturally expanded) over the Caucasus to Europe, while the expansion towards Asia was faster. So that would be the earliest common ground with the Japanese genetically speaking, but of course throughout history human migration was happening constantly. I hope this answers your question.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6237.0,"score_ratio":3.875} +{"post_id":"xkenx8","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How long ago would I (a European) have to go back to find my mutual ancestors with the Japanese\/Asians? I am not certain if the question makes sense, however, I was not sure as to how to word it. I do believe it's an interesting one. So I was wondering. I am Polish, all my traceable ancestors have been Polish, and Poland historically has had very little contact with Japan. As such, it makes it extremely unlikely I have any Japanese ties. But we are the same species, right? So, logically speaking, I must share mutual ancestors with them. Am I mistaken? How long ago would that have been? How far back would I need to go to find my common ancestor with them? But this question does not only concern the Japanese, I am curious about all people of that region, too. However, I focused on Japan, since it used to be an isolate country, and its language is a language isolate (meaning, it's unrelated to any others), so it has absolutely 0 in common with Polish, which made me curious as to how long ago would these two have diverged. I hope my question is not dumb. I just wonder when my last common ancestor with those people would have been.","c_root_id_A":"ipeqgcs","c_root_id_B":"ipdkc98","created_at_utc_A":1663808366,"created_at_utc_B":1663790685,"score_A":11,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all living humans has been estimated to have lived about 3 000 years ago. before that point you have *at least* one shared ancestor with anyone else in the world alive today. further back, we have the \"identical ancestors point\" (IAP) which is the point in time at and before which every ancestor is a common ancestor. in other words, it's the point at which everyone that is the ancestor of someone alive today is also the ancestor of everyone alive today, and everyone else has no living descendants. this point is far more recent than you probably think; it's been estimated at 5 000 \u2013 15 000 years ago. of course, people don't share the same *amount* of ancestry from each of the ancestors at the IAP. if all of your traceable ancestors are Polish, then the largest percentage of your ancestry probably comes from Europe. a Japanese person would probably get the largest percentage of their ancestry from eastern Asia. this is the case because there are \"loops\" in every family tree. going backwards in time, family trees grow very fast. go back only 30 generations and you over one billion ancestors. but there weren't a billion people alive then, so many of these are the same people appearing multiple times in the tree, hence the loops. so a given European ancestor at the IAP probably appears literally trillions of times in your family tree, but may only appear a few times (or even just once) in a Japanese person's ancestry. how recent the IAP of a population is depends on how much mixing there is in a population. if two populations separated and became isolated, never again coming into contact with anyone outside their group, they would have an IAP before the date of separation. but the human population is well-mixed \u2014 more so in the modern day, but in the past as well. you can take two populations that seem entirely separate and find a historical path for genetic flow between them. humans have been interbreeding with their neighbors, even across geographic boundaries, since time immemorial.","human_ref_B":"Not sure in this specific configuration, but you should find at least one common ancestor with rest of humanity by the time you reach 50th generation.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17681.0,"score_ratio":1.375} +{"post_id":"xkenx8","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How long ago would I (a European) have to go back to find my mutual ancestors with the Japanese\/Asians? I am not certain if the question makes sense, however, I was not sure as to how to word it. I do believe it's an interesting one. So I was wondering. I am Polish, all my traceable ancestors have been Polish, and Poland historically has had very little contact with Japan. As such, it makes it extremely unlikely I have any Japanese ties. But we are the same species, right? So, logically speaking, I must share mutual ancestors with them. Am I mistaken? How long ago would that have been? How far back would I need to go to find my common ancestor with them? But this question does not only concern the Japanese, I am curious about all people of that region, too. However, I focused on Japan, since it used to be an isolate country, and its language is a language isolate (meaning, it's unrelated to any others), so it has absolutely 0 in common with Polish, which made me curious as to how long ago would these two have diverged. I hope my question is not dumb. I just wonder when my last common ancestor with those people would have been.","c_root_id_A":"ipeqgcs","c_root_id_B":"ipe3gm0","created_at_utc_A":1663808366,"created_at_utc_B":1663798284,"score_A":11,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all living humans has been estimated to have lived about 3 000 years ago. before that point you have *at least* one shared ancestor with anyone else in the world alive today. further back, we have the \"identical ancestors point\" (IAP) which is the point in time at and before which every ancestor is a common ancestor. in other words, it's the point at which everyone that is the ancestor of someone alive today is also the ancestor of everyone alive today, and everyone else has no living descendants. this point is far more recent than you probably think; it's been estimated at 5 000 \u2013 15 000 years ago. of course, people don't share the same *amount* of ancestry from each of the ancestors at the IAP. if all of your traceable ancestors are Polish, then the largest percentage of your ancestry probably comes from Europe. a Japanese person would probably get the largest percentage of their ancestry from eastern Asia. this is the case because there are \"loops\" in every family tree. going backwards in time, family trees grow very fast. go back only 30 generations and you over one billion ancestors. but there weren't a billion people alive then, so many of these are the same people appearing multiple times in the tree, hence the loops. so a given European ancestor at the IAP probably appears literally trillions of times in your family tree, but may only appear a few times (or even just once) in a Japanese person's ancestry. how recent the IAP of a population is depends on how much mixing there is in a population. if two populations separated and became isolated, never again coming into contact with anyone outside their group, they would have an IAP before the date of separation. but the human population is well-mixed \u2014 more so in the modern day, but in the past as well. you can take two populations that seem entirely separate and find a historical path for genetic flow between them. humans have been interbreeding with their neighbors, even across geographic boundaries, since time immemorial.","human_ref_B":"The question makes perfect sense. I don't know the precise answer, but if you go back around 160K years (it is strongly conjectured) you find a mutual ancestor of you and _any_ human alive today. Literally everybody alive today is a descendant of this guy. If you are interested in Europeans + Japaneses only, you need less going back, but probably not _drastically_ less, considering how far these groups are from each other. Let's say 80-100K years, for the sake of the argument. That's a very long time ago. No cities, no agriculture, and no civilization, for this shared great-great-great-etc-grandfather of both you and mr. Suzuki. (yes, \"father\", not \"mother\". We know that much. The latest common great-granmother lived a lot earlier).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10082.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} +{"post_id":"xkenx8","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How long ago would I (a European) have to go back to find my mutual ancestors with the Japanese\/Asians? I am not certain if the question makes sense, however, I was not sure as to how to word it. I do believe it's an interesting one. So I was wondering. I am Polish, all my traceable ancestors have been Polish, and Poland historically has had very little contact with Japan. As such, it makes it extremely unlikely I have any Japanese ties. But we are the same species, right? So, logically speaking, I must share mutual ancestors with them. Am I mistaken? How long ago would that have been? How far back would I need to go to find my common ancestor with them? But this question does not only concern the Japanese, I am curious about all people of that region, too. However, I focused on Japan, since it used to be an isolate country, and its language is a language isolate (meaning, it's unrelated to any others), so it has absolutely 0 in common with Polish, which made me curious as to how long ago would these two have diverged. I hope my question is not dumb. I just wonder when my last common ancestor with those people would have been.","c_root_id_A":"ipfy6fa","c_root_id_B":"ipe3gm0","created_at_utc_A":1663833696,"created_at_utc_B":1663798284,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Ok I have a question what about isolated groups of people like the Australian Aborigines or the mountain tribes in Papuan New Guinea? Surely they cannot be as closely related as say perhaps Europeans and Asians.","human_ref_B":"The question makes perfect sense. I don't know the precise answer, but if you go back around 160K years (it is strongly conjectured) you find a mutual ancestor of you and _any_ human alive today. Literally everybody alive today is a descendant of this guy. If you are interested in Europeans + Japaneses only, you need less going back, but probably not _drastically_ less, considering how far these groups are from each other. Let's say 80-100K years, for the sake of the argument. That's a very long time ago. No cities, no agriculture, and no civilization, for this shared great-great-great-etc-grandfather of both you and mr. Suzuki. (yes, \"father\", not \"mother\". We know that much. The latest common great-granmother lived a lot earlier).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":35412.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} +{"post_id":"orvtfv","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Will dark skinned people that have migrated to colder climates eventually evolve and mutate to have lighter skin? So I\u2019m not sure if this seems stupid or not but basically what I\u2019m asking is if black immigrants didn\u2019t intermix with local white populations in colder climates, could they eventually mutate to adapt to their climate? Also another question is if there\u2019s a climate with little sunlight, would they have vitamin d deficiency?","c_root_id_A":"h6miqje","c_root_id_B":"h6me5tg","created_at_utc_A":1627329904,"created_at_utc_B":1627327875,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Human populations have changed color many times. It is not a \"mutation to have lighter color skin\" -- it's often that the genes that enhance melanin production are no longer selected for . . . over a long period (tens to hundreds of generations) you see less selection pressure for darker skin, not by change in the structure of a gene, but just by the selection of a different existing allele. In other words, no mutation is necessarily generated in historical time, nor indeed is it necessarily required for such a change-- simply by assortment of existing alleles you can see such changes. Over much longer periods of time, mutations do occur . . . but it's important to distinguish between changes of frequency in existing genes and change to the genes themselves. Both can occur, but the time frame and frequency of such changes is different. Recent work on the evolutionary history of Vitamin D production suggests that the link between changes in sunlight clines and Vitamin D have other correlates than just skin color . . . \\[Hanel & Carlberg 2020\\] note that irrespective of pigmentation, there are changes in the Vitamin D production pathways. So its complicated. See: Deng, Lian, and Shuhua Xu. \"Adaptation of human skin color in various populations.\" Hereditas 155.1 (2018): 1-12. Jablonski, Nina G., and George Chaplin. \"The colours of humanity: the evolution of pigmentation in the human lineage.\" Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 372.1724 (2017): 20160349. Cuthill, Innes C., et al. \"The biology of color.\" Science 357.6350 (2017). Lin, Meng, et al. \"Rapid evolution of a skin-lightening allele in southern African KhoeSan.\" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115.52 (2018): 13324-13329. Jablonski, Nina G., and George Chaplin. \"The roles of vitamin D and cutaneous vitamin D production in human evolution and health.\" International journal of paleopathology 23 (2018): 54-59. Hanel, Andrea, and Carsten Carlberg. \"Skin colour and vitamin D: an update.\" Experimental Dermatology 29.9 (2020): 864-875.","human_ref_B":"We fortify foods with vitamin D, so at least that particular selective pressure for light skin isn't happening to the extent that it was in the past (so probably not).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2029.0,"score_ratio":1.2} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1vsbh9","c_root_id_B":"h1vpo9l","created_at_utc_A":1623784792,"created_at_utc_B":1623783632,"score_A":35,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I am an autistic adult and have an anthropology degree. I have seen at least a dozen+ therapists\/councillors in my life, etc, along with that many specialists as well, so I certainly understand the issues with mental health treatment and how diversity can be treated as abnormality in a bad way. At the same time, if you have a good and trustworthy relationship with your therapist and their advice helps, then many of those critiques of the system are rendered irrelevant. The efficacy of therapy depends on the personal relationship between you and the therapist. I\u2019ve had some really bad experiences but also some very great ones. Its not easy to find a therapist that get along with you that well though, the biggest hurdle you face in mental health IME is finding a provider that is right for you.","human_ref_B":"Please look into the Secular Therapy Project. https:\/\/www.seculartherapy.org\/ \\`\\`\\`What is The Secular Therapy Project? A platform that allows people seeking mental health services to search for secular therapists, who are non-theists who use research supported, evidence-based, state-of-the-art therapeutic methods that do not involve supernatural or religious elements.\\`\\`\\` ​ From what I read of your concerns the STP's vetting might be helpful in finding a good fit. ​ Best of luck","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1160.0,"score_ratio":5.8333333333} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1vv2gf","c_root_id_B":"h1vz962","created_at_utc_A":1623786048,"created_at_utc_B":1623787846,"score_A":12,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"Everyone here has got great advice. I attend therapy\/counseling, hold an undergraduate degree in anthropology and am in a graduate program for the same now. Since others have given great advice here, I will try to just supplement it- sometimes, I think about the frameworks my clinician might be using to understand my problem, or I think about the overall discipline and how it might 'view' something that I am concerned about - at a personal or larger, social and cultural level, but these are only really musings and don't particularly reflect on my experience with my counselor\/therapist. The exception to that would be if I felt something was very off about our relationship or their reaction to something I have shared in therapy. I generally view therapy as a safe place to dump and talk through things I'm experiencing and feeling, work through past experiences and get a better understanding of myself as I go. As long as my therapist assists in that endeavor, I don't mind that they have a larger framework that I have critiques of. They're there to help, and if you have a good - and comfortable time - using their services then all's well in the end. I have only ever had one psych that I did not mesh well with, and that was strictly a psychiatrist- not a therapist. This one doubted what was later diagnosed as ADHD in a full-on battery test because I have great grades. I don't see them anymore.","human_ref_B":"It really depends on what you are looking for therapy to do. Like other medical conditions, some mental health conditions have better outcomes than others. Also like other doctors , some therapists are better than others. But here is the reality. 1) You may be smart, but this is not your expertise. This is actually a common fallacy among smart well educated people. They are more likely to think they know stuff they don\u2019t because they are used to knowing stuff. 2). If you are not happy or productive or have something else going on that would cause you to seek therapy, you have to try therapy because those are the people that deal with it. If you have had a general physical and none of your things have an obvious physical cause, and they have not been helped by simple things like eating right, exercise lay daily, having a good sleep schedule then they aren\u2019t going to get better by themselves. 3). Some types of therapy have better success for certain types of conditions. 4) Do a cost benefit analysis. If someone says, hey try this (say deep breathing for anxiety). It has no downside. If it works you are happier and it is a win. If it doesn\u2019t work, it is not a bad skill to know and you lost nothing but a little time and better lower pulmonary health. If it is a drug suggestion with more potential negative side effects than maybe yes maybe no. 5). You are a complicated system. You would allow IT to trouble shoot and say, hey work a while with this extension off, try this instead of that in order to both possible resolve the problem and also to diagnose the problem. You should allow the therapist the same to some extent - with the caveat that you should tell them that is going to shut down all your WiFi and alarm system so that isnt\u2019 a reasonable choice. 6) You may need to try more than one therapist .","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1798.0,"score_ratio":2.8333333333} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1vpo9l","c_root_id_B":"h1vz962","created_at_utc_A":1623783632,"created_at_utc_B":1623787846,"score_A":6,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"Please look into the Secular Therapy Project. https:\/\/www.seculartherapy.org\/ \\`\\`\\`What is The Secular Therapy Project? A platform that allows people seeking mental health services to search for secular therapists, who are non-theists who use research supported, evidence-based, state-of-the-art therapeutic methods that do not involve supernatural or religious elements.\\`\\`\\` ​ From what I read of your concerns the STP's vetting might be helpful in finding a good fit. ​ Best of luck","human_ref_B":"It really depends on what you are looking for therapy to do. Like other medical conditions, some mental health conditions have better outcomes than others. Also like other doctors , some therapists are better than others. But here is the reality. 1) You may be smart, but this is not your expertise. This is actually a common fallacy among smart well educated people. They are more likely to think they know stuff they don\u2019t because they are used to knowing stuff. 2). If you are not happy or productive or have something else going on that would cause you to seek therapy, you have to try therapy because those are the people that deal with it. If you have had a general physical and none of your things have an obvious physical cause, and they have not been helped by simple things like eating right, exercise lay daily, having a good sleep schedule then they aren\u2019t going to get better by themselves. 3). Some types of therapy have better success for certain types of conditions. 4) Do a cost benefit analysis. If someone says, hey try this (say deep breathing for anxiety). It has no downside. If it works you are happier and it is a win. If it doesn\u2019t work, it is not a bad skill to know and you lost nothing but a little time and better lower pulmonary health. If it is a drug suggestion with more potential negative side effects than maybe yes maybe no. 5). You are a complicated system. You would allow IT to trouble shoot and say, hey work a while with this extension off, try this instead of that in order to both possible resolve the problem and also to diagnose the problem. You should allow the therapist the same to some extent - with the caveat that you should tell them that is going to shut down all your WiFi and alarm system so that isnt\u2019 a reasonable choice. 6) You may need to try more than one therapist .","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4214.0,"score_ratio":5.6666666667} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1vz962","c_root_id_B":"h1vssdw","created_at_utc_A":1623787846,"created_at_utc_B":1623784993,"score_A":34,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"It really depends on what you are looking for therapy to do. Like other medical conditions, some mental health conditions have better outcomes than others. Also like other doctors , some therapists are better than others. But here is the reality. 1) You may be smart, but this is not your expertise. This is actually a common fallacy among smart well educated people. They are more likely to think they know stuff they don\u2019t because they are used to knowing stuff. 2). If you are not happy or productive or have something else going on that would cause you to seek therapy, you have to try therapy because those are the people that deal with it. If you have had a general physical and none of your things have an obvious physical cause, and they have not been helped by simple things like eating right, exercise lay daily, having a good sleep schedule then they aren\u2019t going to get better by themselves. 3). Some types of therapy have better success for certain types of conditions. 4) Do a cost benefit analysis. If someone says, hey try this (say deep breathing for anxiety). It has no downside. If it works you are happier and it is a win. If it doesn\u2019t work, it is not a bad skill to know and you lost nothing but a little time and better lower pulmonary health. If it is a drug suggestion with more potential negative side effects than maybe yes maybe no. 5). You are a complicated system. You would allow IT to trouble shoot and say, hey work a while with this extension off, try this instead of that in order to both possible resolve the problem and also to diagnose the problem. You should allow the therapist the same to some extent - with the caveat that you should tell them that is going to shut down all your WiFi and alarm system so that isnt\u2019 a reasonable choice. 6) You may need to try more than one therapist .","human_ref_B":"I had all the same misgivings and thoughts. I'm still skeptical of psychology as a research science but I can't say enough positives about therapy. Remember you are still an individual with problems, say trauma or emotional issues, within a cultural context working with someone listening and seeing you, your current and your past. Psychology usually fails these broader critiques when you try to project to general humanity","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2853.0,"score_ratio":4.8571428571} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1vz962","c_root_id_B":"h1vv7u1","created_at_utc_A":1623787846,"created_at_utc_B":1623786113,"score_A":34,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"It really depends on what you are looking for therapy to do. Like other medical conditions, some mental health conditions have better outcomes than others. Also like other doctors , some therapists are better than others. But here is the reality. 1) You may be smart, but this is not your expertise. This is actually a common fallacy among smart well educated people. They are more likely to think they know stuff they don\u2019t because they are used to knowing stuff. 2). If you are not happy or productive or have something else going on that would cause you to seek therapy, you have to try therapy because those are the people that deal with it. If you have had a general physical and none of your things have an obvious physical cause, and they have not been helped by simple things like eating right, exercise lay daily, having a good sleep schedule then they aren\u2019t going to get better by themselves. 3). Some types of therapy have better success for certain types of conditions. 4) Do a cost benefit analysis. If someone says, hey try this (say deep breathing for anxiety). It has no downside. If it works you are happier and it is a win. If it doesn\u2019t work, it is not a bad skill to know and you lost nothing but a little time and better lower pulmonary health. If it is a drug suggestion with more potential negative side effects than maybe yes maybe no. 5). You are a complicated system. You would allow IT to trouble shoot and say, hey work a while with this extension off, try this instead of that in order to both possible resolve the problem and also to diagnose the problem. You should allow the therapist the same to some extent - with the caveat that you should tell them that is going to shut down all your WiFi and alarm system so that isnt\u2019 a reasonable choice. 6) You may need to try more than one therapist .","human_ref_B":"Ultimately some people are better at their jobs than others, and there's no guarantee you'll have a good experience. If they're good at their job, it doesn't matter how expert you are at being critical towards a field, because their job is to help you with you. Good Will Hunting, for example, is a good example of this in play. Will is a genius, knows everything about the field, but the therapist's job is to get Will to be the best version of himself, working within those difficult parameters. While I'd say that's a movie, it's not indicative of how therapy typically goes, the point is that is they're good at their jobs you can be as critical as you want; they're trained for that. Nobody \"wants\" to go to therapy, and they know that. Chances are they've helped people much more critical than you. It's not likely that you're going to put them off their game. A lot of this is from experience, I'm a PhD from a top program, been to ivy league, etc., but also seen my fair share of counselors. Don't sweat it. They're professionals.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1733.0,"score_ratio":5.6666666667} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1vz962","c_root_id_B":"h1vyl64","created_at_utc_A":1623787846,"created_at_utc_B":1623787555,"score_A":34,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"It really depends on what you are looking for therapy to do. Like other medical conditions, some mental health conditions have better outcomes than others. Also like other doctors , some therapists are better than others. But here is the reality. 1) You may be smart, but this is not your expertise. This is actually a common fallacy among smart well educated people. They are more likely to think they know stuff they don\u2019t because they are used to knowing stuff. 2). If you are not happy or productive or have something else going on that would cause you to seek therapy, you have to try therapy because those are the people that deal with it. If you have had a general physical and none of your things have an obvious physical cause, and they have not been helped by simple things like eating right, exercise lay daily, having a good sleep schedule then they aren\u2019t going to get better by themselves. 3). Some types of therapy have better success for certain types of conditions. 4) Do a cost benefit analysis. If someone says, hey try this (say deep breathing for anxiety). It has no downside. If it works you are happier and it is a win. If it doesn\u2019t work, it is not a bad skill to know and you lost nothing but a little time and better lower pulmonary health. If it is a drug suggestion with more potential negative side effects than maybe yes maybe no. 5). You are a complicated system. You would allow IT to trouble shoot and say, hey work a while with this extension off, try this instead of that in order to both possible resolve the problem and also to diagnose the problem. You should allow the therapist the same to some extent - with the caveat that you should tell them that is going to shut down all your WiFi and alarm system so that isnt\u2019 a reasonable choice. 6) You may need to try more than one therapist .","human_ref_B":"I think you're being a little over-anxious. I'm also a graduate antropology student, and have had my struggles like any other person\/fellow major student. It takes a bit of time to reconciliate that many psycohologists will do therapy from the point of view of the current shared paradigm (neoliberalism). However, it won't necessarily hinder your ability to discern from what you need vs. what the therapist may perceive or even want. As long as you stay true to your goals and needs you'll be fine.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":291.0,"score_ratio":6.8} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1w5rgg","c_root_id_B":"h1vv2gf","created_at_utc_A":1623790669,"created_at_utc_B":1623786048,"score_A":30,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Therapy doesn't stop working if you \"know how the sausage is made\" or have an academic background critical of the field. In fact, therapists go to therapy all the time because they too are people, and also, they need to avoid compassion fatigue and burnout. I echo the advice of the other commenters in saying look for evidence-based practices and find someone you connect to. It's okay to not mesh with your first therapist. Just like you wouldn't trust any auto mechanic or want to befriend literally any person, it's okay to shop around. Specifically, I would advise you to go to therapy with someone with a PhD in counseling psychology, because they tend to have the academic background to be able to engage critically with you in the concepts of the field. They also have more experience hours, longer oversight, and more qualifications. (Going to a PhD therapist instead of an MSW or Marriage and Family counselor is like going to see a doctor instead of a nurse as far as expertise.) My advice is to be open-minded but honest about your misgivings. It's normal to be leery of therapists. Any therapist worth their salt will be able to listen nonjudgmentally to those. From what you wrote, it seems like you're definitely capable of framing your disagreements in a specific way that's not dismissive of the whole field. Like you're not going to march into a therapist's office and yell \"this is all fake and dumb!\" and then leave. Instead, if a therapist says \"why don't you tell me about x\" or \"for homework this week, try y\" or \"my approach is z\" you can tell them what you think about focusing on x or y or that you do\/don't agree with z and they can respond to that. Really they're not going to be like \"you've insulted me, my family, and my profession.\" Instead, I think most therapists would be happy to engage with someone who can geek out about the academic side with them and find something that works for you both.","human_ref_B":"Everyone here has got great advice. I attend therapy\/counseling, hold an undergraduate degree in anthropology and am in a graduate program for the same now. Since others have given great advice here, I will try to just supplement it- sometimes, I think about the frameworks my clinician might be using to understand my problem, or I think about the overall discipline and how it might 'view' something that I am concerned about - at a personal or larger, social and cultural level, but these are only really musings and don't particularly reflect on my experience with my counselor\/therapist. The exception to that would be if I felt something was very off about our relationship or their reaction to something I have shared in therapy. I generally view therapy as a safe place to dump and talk through things I'm experiencing and feeling, work through past experiences and get a better understanding of myself as I go. As long as my therapist assists in that endeavor, I don't mind that they have a larger framework that I have critiques of. They're there to help, and if you have a good - and comfortable time - using their services then all's well in the end. I have only ever had one psych that I did not mesh well with, and that was strictly a psychiatrist- not a therapist. This one doubted what was later diagnosed as ADHD in a full-on battery test because I have great grades. I don't see them anymore.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4621.0,"score_ratio":2.5} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1w5rgg","c_root_id_B":"h1w52pa","created_at_utc_A":1623790669,"created_at_utc_B":1623790368,"score_A":30,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Therapy doesn't stop working if you \"know how the sausage is made\" or have an academic background critical of the field. In fact, therapists go to therapy all the time because they too are people, and also, they need to avoid compassion fatigue and burnout. I echo the advice of the other commenters in saying look for evidence-based practices and find someone you connect to. It's okay to not mesh with your first therapist. Just like you wouldn't trust any auto mechanic or want to befriend literally any person, it's okay to shop around. Specifically, I would advise you to go to therapy with someone with a PhD in counseling psychology, because they tend to have the academic background to be able to engage critically with you in the concepts of the field. They also have more experience hours, longer oversight, and more qualifications. (Going to a PhD therapist instead of an MSW or Marriage and Family counselor is like going to see a doctor instead of a nurse as far as expertise.) My advice is to be open-minded but honest about your misgivings. It's normal to be leery of therapists. Any therapist worth their salt will be able to listen nonjudgmentally to those. From what you wrote, it seems like you're definitely capable of framing your disagreements in a specific way that's not dismissive of the whole field. Like you're not going to march into a therapist's office and yell \"this is all fake and dumb!\" and then leave. Instead, if a therapist says \"why don't you tell me about x\" or \"for homework this week, try y\" or \"my approach is z\" you can tell them what you think about focusing on x or y or that you do\/don't agree with z and they can respond to that. Really they're not going to be like \"you've insulted me, my family, and my profession.\" Instead, I think most therapists would be happy to engage with someone who can geek out about the academic side with them and find something that works for you both.","human_ref_B":"First would be to recognize, and internalize, that you're not the expert. You know a lot about some things, you're well informed, but you're not the expert. You're there to help you, not to critique the therapist.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":301.0,"score_ratio":2.7272727273} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1vpo9l","c_root_id_B":"h1w5rgg","created_at_utc_A":1623783632,"created_at_utc_B":1623790669,"score_A":6,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"Please look into the Secular Therapy Project. https:\/\/www.seculartherapy.org\/ \\`\\`\\`What is The Secular Therapy Project? A platform that allows people seeking mental health services to search for secular therapists, who are non-theists who use research supported, evidence-based, state-of-the-art therapeutic methods that do not involve supernatural or religious elements.\\`\\`\\` ​ From what I read of your concerns the STP's vetting might be helpful in finding a good fit. ​ Best of luck","human_ref_B":"Therapy doesn't stop working if you \"know how the sausage is made\" or have an academic background critical of the field. In fact, therapists go to therapy all the time because they too are people, and also, they need to avoid compassion fatigue and burnout. I echo the advice of the other commenters in saying look for evidence-based practices and find someone you connect to. It's okay to not mesh with your first therapist. Just like you wouldn't trust any auto mechanic or want to befriend literally any person, it's okay to shop around. Specifically, I would advise you to go to therapy with someone with a PhD in counseling psychology, because they tend to have the academic background to be able to engage critically with you in the concepts of the field. They also have more experience hours, longer oversight, and more qualifications. (Going to a PhD therapist instead of an MSW or Marriage and Family counselor is like going to see a doctor instead of a nurse as far as expertise.) My advice is to be open-minded but honest about your misgivings. It's normal to be leery of therapists. Any therapist worth their salt will be able to listen nonjudgmentally to those. From what you wrote, it seems like you're definitely capable of framing your disagreements in a specific way that's not dismissive of the whole field. Like you're not going to march into a therapist's office and yell \"this is all fake and dumb!\" and then leave. Instead, if a therapist says \"why don't you tell me about x\" or \"for homework this week, try y\" or \"my approach is z\" you can tell them what you think about focusing on x or y or that you do\/don't agree with z and they can respond to that. Really they're not going to be like \"you've insulted me, my family, and my profession.\" Instead, I think most therapists would be happy to engage with someone who can geek out about the academic side with them and find something that works for you both.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7037.0,"score_ratio":5.0} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1vssdw","c_root_id_B":"h1w5rgg","created_at_utc_A":1623784993,"created_at_utc_B":1623790669,"score_A":7,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"I had all the same misgivings and thoughts. I'm still skeptical of psychology as a research science but I can't say enough positives about therapy. Remember you are still an individual with problems, say trauma or emotional issues, within a cultural context working with someone listening and seeing you, your current and your past. Psychology usually fails these broader critiques when you try to project to general humanity","human_ref_B":"Therapy doesn't stop working if you \"know how the sausage is made\" or have an academic background critical of the field. In fact, therapists go to therapy all the time because they too are people, and also, they need to avoid compassion fatigue and burnout. I echo the advice of the other commenters in saying look for evidence-based practices and find someone you connect to. It's okay to not mesh with your first therapist. Just like you wouldn't trust any auto mechanic or want to befriend literally any person, it's okay to shop around. Specifically, I would advise you to go to therapy with someone with a PhD in counseling psychology, because they tend to have the academic background to be able to engage critically with you in the concepts of the field. They also have more experience hours, longer oversight, and more qualifications. (Going to a PhD therapist instead of an MSW or Marriage and Family counselor is like going to see a doctor instead of a nurse as far as expertise.) My advice is to be open-minded but honest about your misgivings. It's normal to be leery of therapists. Any therapist worth their salt will be able to listen nonjudgmentally to those. From what you wrote, it seems like you're definitely capable of framing your disagreements in a specific way that's not dismissive of the whole field. Like you're not going to march into a therapist's office and yell \"this is all fake and dumb!\" and then leave. Instead, if a therapist says \"why don't you tell me about x\" or \"for homework this week, try y\" or \"my approach is z\" you can tell them what you think about focusing on x or y or that you do\/don't agree with z and they can respond to that. Really they're not going to be like \"you've insulted me, my family, and my profession.\" Instead, I think most therapists would be happy to engage with someone who can geek out about the academic side with them and find something that works for you both.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5676.0,"score_ratio":4.2857142857} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1w5rgg","c_root_id_B":"h1vv7u1","created_at_utc_A":1623790669,"created_at_utc_B":1623786113,"score_A":30,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Therapy doesn't stop working if you \"know how the sausage is made\" or have an academic background critical of the field. In fact, therapists go to therapy all the time because they too are people, and also, they need to avoid compassion fatigue and burnout. I echo the advice of the other commenters in saying look for evidence-based practices and find someone you connect to. It's okay to not mesh with your first therapist. Just like you wouldn't trust any auto mechanic or want to befriend literally any person, it's okay to shop around. Specifically, I would advise you to go to therapy with someone with a PhD in counseling psychology, because they tend to have the academic background to be able to engage critically with you in the concepts of the field. They also have more experience hours, longer oversight, and more qualifications. (Going to a PhD therapist instead of an MSW or Marriage and Family counselor is like going to see a doctor instead of a nurse as far as expertise.) My advice is to be open-minded but honest about your misgivings. It's normal to be leery of therapists. Any therapist worth their salt will be able to listen nonjudgmentally to those. From what you wrote, it seems like you're definitely capable of framing your disagreements in a specific way that's not dismissive of the whole field. Like you're not going to march into a therapist's office and yell \"this is all fake and dumb!\" and then leave. Instead, if a therapist says \"why don't you tell me about x\" or \"for homework this week, try y\" or \"my approach is z\" you can tell them what you think about focusing on x or y or that you do\/don't agree with z and they can respond to that. Really they're not going to be like \"you've insulted me, my family, and my profession.\" Instead, I think most therapists would be happy to engage with someone who can geek out about the academic side with them and find something that works for you both.","human_ref_B":"Ultimately some people are better at their jobs than others, and there's no guarantee you'll have a good experience. If they're good at their job, it doesn't matter how expert you are at being critical towards a field, because their job is to help you with you. Good Will Hunting, for example, is a good example of this in play. Will is a genius, knows everything about the field, but the therapist's job is to get Will to be the best version of himself, working within those difficult parameters. While I'd say that's a movie, it's not indicative of how therapy typically goes, the point is that is they're good at their jobs you can be as critical as you want; they're trained for that. Nobody \"wants\" to go to therapy, and they know that. Chances are they've helped people much more critical than you. It's not likely that you're going to put them off their game. A lot of this is from experience, I'm a PhD from a top program, been to ivy league, etc., but also seen my fair share of counselors. Don't sweat it. They're professionals.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4556.0,"score_ratio":5.0} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1vyl64","c_root_id_B":"h1w5rgg","created_at_utc_A":1623787555,"created_at_utc_B":1623790669,"score_A":5,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"I think you're being a little over-anxious. I'm also a graduate antropology student, and have had my struggles like any other person\/fellow major student. It takes a bit of time to reconciliate that many psycohologists will do therapy from the point of view of the current shared paradigm (neoliberalism). However, it won't necessarily hinder your ability to discern from what you need vs. what the therapist may perceive or even want. As long as you stay true to your goals and needs you'll be fine.","human_ref_B":"Therapy doesn't stop working if you \"know how the sausage is made\" or have an academic background critical of the field. In fact, therapists go to therapy all the time because they too are people, and also, they need to avoid compassion fatigue and burnout. I echo the advice of the other commenters in saying look for evidence-based practices and find someone you connect to. It's okay to not mesh with your first therapist. Just like you wouldn't trust any auto mechanic or want to befriend literally any person, it's okay to shop around. Specifically, I would advise you to go to therapy with someone with a PhD in counseling psychology, because they tend to have the academic background to be able to engage critically with you in the concepts of the field. They also have more experience hours, longer oversight, and more qualifications. (Going to a PhD therapist instead of an MSW or Marriage and Family counselor is like going to see a doctor instead of a nurse as far as expertise.) My advice is to be open-minded but honest about your misgivings. It's normal to be leery of therapists. Any therapist worth their salt will be able to listen nonjudgmentally to those. From what you wrote, it seems like you're definitely capable of framing your disagreements in a specific way that's not dismissive of the whole field. Like you're not going to march into a therapist's office and yell \"this is all fake and dumb!\" and then leave. Instead, if a therapist says \"why don't you tell me about x\" or \"for homework this week, try y\" or \"my approach is z\" you can tell them what you think about focusing on x or y or that you do\/don't agree with z and they can respond to that. Really they're not going to be like \"you've insulted me, my family, and my profession.\" Instead, I think most therapists would be happy to engage with someone who can geek out about the academic side with them and find something that works for you both.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3114.0,"score_ratio":6.0} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1vpo9l","c_root_id_B":"h1vv2gf","created_at_utc_A":1623783632,"created_at_utc_B":1623786048,"score_A":6,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Please look into the Secular Therapy Project. https:\/\/www.seculartherapy.org\/ \\`\\`\\`What is The Secular Therapy Project? A platform that allows people seeking mental health services to search for secular therapists, who are non-theists who use research supported, evidence-based, state-of-the-art therapeutic methods that do not involve supernatural or religious elements.\\`\\`\\` ​ From what I read of your concerns the STP's vetting might be helpful in finding a good fit. ​ Best of luck","human_ref_B":"Everyone here has got great advice. I attend therapy\/counseling, hold an undergraduate degree in anthropology and am in a graduate program for the same now. Since others have given great advice here, I will try to just supplement it- sometimes, I think about the frameworks my clinician might be using to understand my problem, or I think about the overall discipline and how it might 'view' something that I am concerned about - at a personal or larger, social and cultural level, but these are only really musings and don't particularly reflect on my experience with my counselor\/therapist. The exception to that would be if I felt something was very off about our relationship or their reaction to something I have shared in therapy. I generally view therapy as a safe place to dump and talk through things I'm experiencing and feeling, work through past experiences and get a better understanding of myself as I go. As long as my therapist assists in that endeavor, I don't mind that they have a larger framework that I have critiques of. They're there to help, and if you have a good - and comfortable time - using their services then all's well in the end. I have only ever had one psych that I did not mesh well with, and that was strictly a psychiatrist- not a therapist. This one doubted what was later diagnosed as ADHD in a full-on battery test because I have great grades. I don't see them anymore.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2416.0,"score_ratio":2.0} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1vssdw","c_root_id_B":"h1vv2gf","created_at_utc_A":1623784993,"created_at_utc_B":1623786048,"score_A":7,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I had all the same misgivings and thoughts. I'm still skeptical of psychology as a research science but I can't say enough positives about therapy. Remember you are still an individual with problems, say trauma or emotional issues, within a cultural context working with someone listening and seeing you, your current and your past. Psychology usually fails these broader critiques when you try to project to general humanity","human_ref_B":"Everyone here has got great advice. I attend therapy\/counseling, hold an undergraduate degree in anthropology and am in a graduate program for the same now. Since others have given great advice here, I will try to just supplement it- sometimes, I think about the frameworks my clinician might be using to understand my problem, or I think about the overall discipline and how it might 'view' something that I am concerned about - at a personal or larger, social and cultural level, but these are only really musings and don't particularly reflect on my experience with my counselor\/therapist. The exception to that would be if I felt something was very off about our relationship or their reaction to something I have shared in therapy. I generally view therapy as a safe place to dump and talk through things I'm experiencing and feeling, work through past experiences and get a better understanding of myself as I go. As long as my therapist assists in that endeavor, I don't mind that they have a larger framework that I have critiques of. They're there to help, and if you have a good - and comfortable time - using their services then all's well in the end. I have only ever had one psych that I did not mesh well with, and that was strictly a psychiatrist- not a therapist. This one doubted what was later diagnosed as ADHD in a full-on battery test because I have great grades. I don't see them anymore.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1055.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1w52pa","c_root_id_B":"h1vpo9l","created_at_utc_A":1623790368,"created_at_utc_B":1623783632,"score_A":11,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"First would be to recognize, and internalize, that you're not the expert. You know a lot about some things, you're well informed, but you're not the expert. You're there to help you, not to critique the therapist.","human_ref_B":"Please look into the Secular Therapy Project. https:\/\/www.seculartherapy.org\/ \\`\\`\\`What is The Secular Therapy Project? A platform that allows people seeking mental health services to search for secular therapists, who are non-theists who use research supported, evidence-based, state-of-the-art therapeutic methods that do not involve supernatural or religious elements.\\`\\`\\` ​ From what I read of your concerns the STP's vetting might be helpful in finding a good fit. ​ Best of luck","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6736.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1w52pa","c_root_id_B":"h1vssdw","created_at_utc_A":1623790368,"created_at_utc_B":1623784993,"score_A":11,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"First would be to recognize, and internalize, that you're not the expert. You know a lot about some things, you're well informed, but you're not the expert. You're there to help you, not to critique the therapist.","human_ref_B":"I had all the same misgivings and thoughts. I'm still skeptical of psychology as a research science but I can't say enough positives about therapy. Remember you are still an individual with problems, say trauma or emotional issues, within a cultural context working with someone listening and seeing you, your current and your past. Psychology usually fails these broader critiques when you try to project to general humanity","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5375.0,"score_ratio":1.5714285714} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1w52pa","c_root_id_B":"h1vv7u1","created_at_utc_A":1623790368,"created_at_utc_B":1623786113,"score_A":11,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"First would be to recognize, and internalize, that you're not the expert. You know a lot about some things, you're well informed, but you're not the expert. You're there to help you, not to critique the therapist.","human_ref_B":"Ultimately some people are better at their jobs than others, and there's no guarantee you'll have a good experience. If they're good at their job, it doesn't matter how expert you are at being critical towards a field, because their job is to help you with you. Good Will Hunting, for example, is a good example of this in play. Will is a genius, knows everything about the field, but the therapist's job is to get Will to be the best version of himself, working within those difficult parameters. While I'd say that's a movie, it's not indicative of how therapy typically goes, the point is that is they're good at their jobs you can be as critical as you want; they're trained for that. Nobody \"wants\" to go to therapy, and they know that. Chances are they've helped people much more critical than you. It's not likely that you're going to put them off their game. A lot of this is from experience, I'm a PhD from a top program, been to ivy league, etc., but also seen my fair share of counselors. Don't sweat it. They're professionals.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4255.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1vyl64","c_root_id_B":"h1w52pa","created_at_utc_A":1623787555,"created_at_utc_B":1623790368,"score_A":5,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"I think you're being a little over-anxious. I'm also a graduate antropology student, and have had my struggles like any other person\/fellow major student. It takes a bit of time to reconciliate that many psycohologists will do therapy from the point of view of the current shared paradigm (neoliberalism). However, it won't necessarily hinder your ability to discern from what you need vs. what the therapist may perceive or even want. As long as you stay true to your goals and needs you'll be fine.","human_ref_B":"First would be to recognize, and internalize, that you're not the expert. You know a lot about some things, you're well informed, but you're not the expert. You're there to help you, not to critique the therapist.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2813.0,"score_ratio":2.2} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1wcbwr","c_root_id_B":"h1vpo9l","created_at_utc_A":1623793643,"created_at_utc_B":1623783632,"score_A":10,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"As a therapist, this is what I tell people when they ask me if therapy will be helpful: Most people can work through their own problems if given a long enough period of time. However, a therapist may be able to get you through 5 years worth of thinking in 6 months time, giving you 4.5 years of your life back that you won\u2019t have to use trying to understand and fix your problem(s). The quicker you can understand\/solve\/mitigate your issues, the sooner you can move on to other happier things.","human_ref_B":"Please look into the Secular Therapy Project. https:\/\/www.seculartherapy.org\/ \\`\\`\\`What is The Secular Therapy Project? A platform that allows people seeking mental health services to search for secular therapists, who are non-theists who use research supported, evidence-based, state-of-the-art therapeutic methods that do not involve supernatural or religious elements.\\`\\`\\` ​ From what I read of your concerns the STP's vetting might be helpful in finding a good fit. ​ Best of luck","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10011.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1wcbwr","c_root_id_B":"h1vssdw","created_at_utc_A":1623793643,"created_at_utc_B":1623784993,"score_A":10,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"As a therapist, this is what I tell people when they ask me if therapy will be helpful: Most people can work through their own problems if given a long enough period of time. However, a therapist may be able to get you through 5 years worth of thinking in 6 months time, giving you 4.5 years of your life back that you won\u2019t have to use trying to understand and fix your problem(s). The quicker you can understand\/solve\/mitigate your issues, the sooner you can move on to other happier things.","human_ref_B":"I had all the same misgivings and thoughts. I'm still skeptical of psychology as a research science but I can't say enough positives about therapy. Remember you are still an individual with problems, say trauma or emotional issues, within a cultural context working with someone listening and seeing you, your current and your past. Psychology usually fails these broader critiques when you try to project to general humanity","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8650.0,"score_ratio":1.4285714286} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1wcbwr","c_root_id_B":"h1vv7u1","created_at_utc_A":1623793643,"created_at_utc_B":1623786113,"score_A":10,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"As a therapist, this is what I tell people when they ask me if therapy will be helpful: Most people can work through their own problems if given a long enough period of time. However, a therapist may be able to get you through 5 years worth of thinking in 6 months time, giving you 4.5 years of your life back that you won\u2019t have to use trying to understand and fix your problem(s). The quicker you can understand\/solve\/mitigate your issues, the sooner you can move on to other happier things.","human_ref_B":"Ultimately some people are better at their jobs than others, and there's no guarantee you'll have a good experience. If they're good at their job, it doesn't matter how expert you are at being critical towards a field, because their job is to help you with you. Good Will Hunting, for example, is a good example of this in play. Will is a genius, knows everything about the field, but the therapist's job is to get Will to be the best version of himself, working within those difficult parameters. While I'd say that's a movie, it's not indicative of how therapy typically goes, the point is that is they're good at their jobs you can be as critical as you want; they're trained for that. Nobody \"wants\" to go to therapy, and they know that. Chances are they've helped people much more critical than you. It's not likely that you're going to put them off their game. A lot of this is from experience, I'm a PhD from a top program, been to ivy league, etc., but also seen my fair share of counselors. Don't sweat it. They're professionals.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7530.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1vyl64","c_root_id_B":"h1wcbwr","created_at_utc_A":1623787555,"created_at_utc_B":1623793643,"score_A":5,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I think you're being a little over-anxious. I'm also a graduate antropology student, and have had my struggles like any other person\/fellow major student. It takes a bit of time to reconciliate that many psycohologists will do therapy from the point of view of the current shared paradigm (neoliberalism). However, it won't necessarily hinder your ability to discern from what you need vs. what the therapist may perceive or even want. As long as you stay true to your goals and needs you'll be fine.","human_ref_B":"As a therapist, this is what I tell people when they ask me if therapy will be helpful: Most people can work through their own problems if given a long enough period of time. However, a therapist may be able to get you through 5 years worth of thinking in 6 months time, giving you 4.5 years of your life back that you won\u2019t have to use trying to understand and fix your problem(s). The quicker you can understand\/solve\/mitigate your issues, the sooner you can move on to other happier things.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6088.0,"score_ratio":2.0} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1w6klv","c_root_id_B":"h1wcbwr","created_at_utc_A":1623791028,"created_at_utc_B":1623793643,"score_A":3,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I suggest you ask your therapist about what type(s) of therapies they employ right off the bat. You can decide if their approach makes sense to you so you can build trust from the beginning. If after a few sessions you really feel like you\u2019re speaking different languages, don\u2019t feel like you have to stick with them. They don\u2019t need to be a friend, but they should make you feel confident in their plans and abilities. If they can\u2019t \/ don\u2019t - find someone new.","human_ref_B":"As a therapist, this is what I tell people when they ask me if therapy will be helpful: Most people can work through their own problems if given a long enough period of time. However, a therapist may be able to get you through 5 years worth of thinking in 6 months time, giving you 4.5 years of your life back that you won\u2019t have to use trying to understand and fix your problem(s). The quicker you can understand\/solve\/mitigate your issues, the sooner you can move on to other happier things.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2615.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1wcbwr","c_root_id_B":"h1w6ndm","created_at_utc_A":1623793643,"created_at_utc_B":1623791061,"score_A":10,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"As a therapist, this is what I tell people when they ask me if therapy will be helpful: Most people can work through their own problems if given a long enough period of time. However, a therapist may be able to get you through 5 years worth of thinking in 6 months time, giving you 4.5 years of your life back that you won\u2019t have to use trying to understand and fix your problem(s). The quicker you can understand\/solve\/mitigate your issues, the sooner you can move on to other happier things.","human_ref_B":"Nominalbiped gave you a great answer. I was going to say just try to relax while there an go with the flow. In the end your therapist is a verified stranger, and sometimes it's much easier to open up to people you don't know who usually are guaranteed not to pass judgement. I didn't get past a BA in anthropology, but I did get my masters in social work. I have my foot in many doors. I find therapy works better for me know because I have a better understanding of what my therapist is doing and why. I also understand the methodology behind it, what we're hoping to achieve, etc. Makes buy-in better, or I know sooner that this particular approach isn't going to work so let's try something else, or even a knew therapist if necessary. Good luck! I hope you find a good one. Remember you can change therapists if need be, if it's not working out. Be upfront about your hesitations because they will play a role in your work together, and your therapist should know so they can approach things with you in a more comfortable manner. I think it's really cool you asked.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2582.0,"score_ratio":5.0} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1vpo9l","c_root_id_B":"h1x685e","created_at_utc_A":1623783632,"created_at_utc_B":1623808959,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Please look into the Secular Therapy Project. https:\/\/www.seculartherapy.org\/ \\`\\`\\`What is The Secular Therapy Project? A platform that allows people seeking mental health services to search for secular therapists, who are non-theists who use research supported, evidence-based, state-of-the-art therapeutic methods that do not involve supernatural or religious elements.\\`\\`\\` ​ From what I read of your concerns the STP's vetting might be helpful in finding a good fit. ​ Best of luck","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m autistic and studied anthropology in university. I get where you\u2019re coming from. My biggest advice would be to remember that \u201cintellectualizing\u201d things is a defense mechanism. Don\u2019t try to analyze to avoid feelings. Accept vulnerability for transformation to happen","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25327.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1vpo9l","c_root_id_B":"h1vssdw","created_at_utc_A":1623783632,"created_at_utc_B":1623784993,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Please look into the Secular Therapy Project. https:\/\/www.seculartherapy.org\/ \\`\\`\\`What is The Secular Therapy Project? A platform that allows people seeking mental health services to search for secular therapists, who are non-theists who use research supported, evidence-based, state-of-the-art therapeutic methods that do not involve supernatural or religious elements.\\`\\`\\` ​ From what I read of your concerns the STP's vetting might be helpful in finding a good fit. ​ Best of luck","human_ref_B":"I had all the same misgivings and thoughts. I'm still skeptical of psychology as a research science but I can't say enough positives about therapy. Remember you are still an individual with problems, say trauma or emotional issues, within a cultural context working with someone listening and seeing you, your current and your past. Psychology usually fails these broader critiques when you try to project to general humanity","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1361.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1vv7u1","c_root_id_B":"h1x685e","created_at_utc_A":1623786113,"created_at_utc_B":1623808959,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Ultimately some people are better at their jobs than others, and there's no guarantee you'll have a good experience. If they're good at their job, it doesn't matter how expert you are at being critical towards a field, because their job is to help you with you. Good Will Hunting, for example, is a good example of this in play. Will is a genius, knows everything about the field, but the therapist's job is to get Will to be the best version of himself, working within those difficult parameters. While I'd say that's a movie, it's not indicative of how therapy typically goes, the point is that is they're good at their jobs you can be as critical as you want; they're trained for that. Nobody \"wants\" to go to therapy, and they know that. Chances are they've helped people much more critical than you. It's not likely that you're going to put them off their game. A lot of this is from experience, I'm a PhD from a top program, been to ivy league, etc., but also seen my fair share of counselors. Don't sweat it. They're professionals.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m autistic and studied anthropology in university. I get where you\u2019re coming from. My biggest advice would be to remember that \u201cintellectualizing\u201d things is a defense mechanism. Don\u2019t try to analyze to avoid feelings. Accept vulnerability for transformation to happen","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22846.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1x685e","c_root_id_B":"h1vyl64","created_at_utc_A":1623808959,"created_at_utc_B":1623787555,"score_A":7,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m autistic and studied anthropology in university. I get where you\u2019re coming from. My biggest advice would be to remember that \u201cintellectualizing\u201d things is a defense mechanism. Don\u2019t try to analyze to avoid feelings. Accept vulnerability for transformation to happen","human_ref_B":"I think you're being a little over-anxious. I'm also a graduate antropology student, and have had my struggles like any other person\/fellow major student. It takes a bit of time to reconciliate that many psycohologists will do therapy from the point of view of the current shared paradigm (neoliberalism). However, it won't necessarily hinder your ability to discern from what you need vs. what the therapist may perceive or even want. As long as you stay true to your goals and needs you'll be fine.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21404.0,"score_ratio":1.4} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1w6klv","c_root_id_B":"h1x685e","created_at_utc_A":1623791028,"created_at_utc_B":1623808959,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I suggest you ask your therapist about what type(s) of therapies they employ right off the bat. You can decide if their approach makes sense to you so you can build trust from the beginning. If after a few sessions you really feel like you\u2019re speaking different languages, don\u2019t feel like you have to stick with them. They don\u2019t need to be a friend, but they should make you feel confident in their plans and abilities. If they can\u2019t \/ don\u2019t - find someone new.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m autistic and studied anthropology in university. I get where you\u2019re coming from. My biggest advice would be to remember that \u201cintellectualizing\u201d things is a defense mechanism. Don\u2019t try to analyze to avoid feelings. Accept vulnerability for transformation to happen","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17931.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1wwcmz","c_root_id_B":"h1x685e","created_at_utc_A":1623803840,"created_at_utc_B":1623808959,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Don\u2019t think if therapy of this way. Think of it as consistency. Friends and family may be too busy or emotionally unavailable for you to talk to all the time, so having a therapist is really just a way of having emotional stability in your life when no one else is able to provide that for you. Therapy is not, someone who doesn\u2019t know you who is trying to psychoanalyze you. Therapy is, when something happens to you, you know for a fact you\u2019ll be able to process it in a week so you don\u2019t make disproportionate mental illness cycles in the meantime","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m autistic and studied anthropology in university. I get where you\u2019re coming from. My biggest advice would be to remember that \u201cintellectualizing\u201d things is a defense mechanism. Don\u2019t try to analyze to avoid feelings. Accept vulnerability for transformation to happen","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5119.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1w6ndm","c_root_id_B":"h1x685e","created_at_utc_A":1623791061,"created_at_utc_B":1623808959,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Nominalbiped gave you a great answer. I was going to say just try to relax while there an go with the flow. In the end your therapist is a verified stranger, and sometimes it's much easier to open up to people you don't know who usually are guaranteed not to pass judgement. I didn't get past a BA in anthropology, but I did get my masters in social work. I have my foot in many doors. I find therapy works better for me know because I have a better understanding of what my therapist is doing and why. I also understand the methodology behind it, what we're hoping to achieve, etc. Makes buy-in better, or I know sooner that this particular approach isn't going to work so let's try something else, or even a knew therapist if necessary. Good luck! I hope you find a good one. Remember you can change therapists if need be, if it's not working out. Be upfront about your hesitations because they will play a role in your work together, and your therapist should know so they can approach things with you in a more comfortable manner. I think it's really cool you asked.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m autistic and studied anthropology in university. I get where you\u2019re coming from. My biggest advice would be to remember that \u201cintellectualizing\u201d things is a defense mechanism. Don\u2019t try to analyze to avoid feelings. Accept vulnerability for transformation to happen","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17898.0,"score_ratio":3.5} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1wivga","c_root_id_B":"h1x685e","created_at_utc_A":1623796800,"created_at_utc_B":1623808959,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I went in focused more on results and less on the specific methodology. I've had my fair share of useless therapists and it took a while to find a good one. And since I'm exposed to new age woo and \"alternative\" medicine from my family therapy now seems much more reasonable.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m autistic and studied anthropology in university. I get where you\u2019re coming from. My biggest advice would be to remember that \u201cintellectualizing\u201d things is a defense mechanism. Don\u2019t try to analyze to avoid feelings. Accept vulnerability for transformation to happen","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12159.0,"score_ratio":3.5} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1w6ndm","c_root_id_B":"h1wwcmz","created_at_utc_A":1623791061,"created_at_utc_B":1623803840,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Nominalbiped gave you a great answer. I was going to say just try to relax while there an go with the flow. In the end your therapist is a verified stranger, and sometimes it's much easier to open up to people you don't know who usually are guaranteed not to pass judgement. I didn't get past a BA in anthropology, but I did get my masters in social work. I have my foot in many doors. I find therapy works better for me know because I have a better understanding of what my therapist is doing and why. I also understand the methodology behind it, what we're hoping to achieve, etc. Makes buy-in better, or I know sooner that this particular approach isn't going to work so let's try something else, or even a knew therapist if necessary. Good luck! I hope you find a good one. Remember you can change therapists if need be, if it's not working out. Be upfront about your hesitations because they will play a role in your work together, and your therapist should know so they can approach things with you in a more comfortable manner. I think it's really cool you asked.","human_ref_B":"Don\u2019t think if therapy of this way. Think of it as consistency. Friends and family may be too busy or emotionally unavailable for you to talk to all the time, so having a therapist is really just a way of having emotional stability in your life when no one else is able to provide that for you. Therapy is not, someone who doesn\u2019t know you who is trying to psychoanalyze you. Therapy is, when something happens to you, you know for a fact you\u2019ll be able to process it in a week so you don\u2019t make disproportionate mental illness cycles in the meantime","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12779.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1wwcmz","c_root_id_B":"h1wivga","created_at_utc_A":1623803840,"created_at_utc_B":1623796800,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Don\u2019t think if therapy of this way. Think of it as consistency. Friends and family may be too busy or emotionally unavailable for you to talk to all the time, so having a therapist is really just a way of having emotional stability in your life when no one else is able to provide that for you. Therapy is not, someone who doesn\u2019t know you who is trying to psychoanalyze you. Therapy is, when something happens to you, you know for a fact you\u2019ll be able to process it in a week so you don\u2019t make disproportionate mental illness cycles in the meantime","human_ref_B":"I went in focused more on results and less on the specific methodology. I've had my fair share of useless therapists and it took a while to find a good one. And since I'm exposed to new age woo and \"alternative\" medicine from my family therapy now seems much more reasonable.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7040.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1yozm5","c_root_id_B":"h1w6ndm","created_at_utc_A":1623848522,"created_at_utc_B":1623791061,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You\u2019re not in school when you\u2019re in therapy, so you can take a break from analyzation. While in therapy, you\u2019re in a space where you give the information that comes to your frontal lobe (whatever floats to the top of your mind) as honestly as you can so the professional can learn what you need. This requires a little bit of buy in, so it\u2019d be worth it to give the professional courtesy to your therapist the you would like to receive from one of your target study groups. It\u2019s helpful to be honest with a therapist about your mistrust and if you struggle with turning off the analytical\/critical side. One of the reasons I went into anthropology in the first place is because I couldn\u2019t turn off my analytical brain. Therapy helped me take more control of that and I now have a much better time remaining focused and objective during my studies.","human_ref_B":"Nominalbiped gave you a great answer. I was going to say just try to relax while there an go with the flow. In the end your therapist is a verified stranger, and sometimes it's much easier to open up to people you don't know who usually are guaranteed not to pass judgement. I didn't get past a BA in anthropology, but I did get my masters in social work. I have my foot in many doors. I find therapy works better for me know because I have a better understanding of what my therapist is doing and why. I also understand the methodology behind it, what we're hoping to achieve, etc. Makes buy-in better, or I know sooner that this particular approach isn't going to work so let's try something else, or even a knew therapist if necessary. Good luck! I hope you find a good one. Remember you can change therapists if need be, if it's not working out. Be upfront about your hesitations because they will play a role in your work together, and your therapist should know so they can approach things with you in a more comfortable manner. I think it's really cool you asked.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":57461.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1wivga","c_root_id_B":"h1yozm5","created_at_utc_A":1623796800,"created_at_utc_B":1623848522,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I went in focused more on results and less on the specific methodology. I've had my fair share of useless therapists and it took a while to find a good one. And since I'm exposed to new age woo and \"alternative\" medicine from my family therapy now seems much more reasonable.","human_ref_B":"You\u2019re not in school when you\u2019re in therapy, so you can take a break from analyzation. While in therapy, you\u2019re in a space where you give the information that comes to your frontal lobe (whatever floats to the top of your mind) as honestly as you can so the professional can learn what you need. This requires a little bit of buy in, so it\u2019d be worth it to give the professional courtesy to your therapist the you would like to receive from one of your target study groups. It\u2019s helpful to be honest with a therapist about your mistrust and if you struggle with turning off the analytical\/critical side. One of the reasons I went into anthropology in the first place is because I couldn\u2019t turn off my analytical brain. Therapy helped me take more control of that and I now have a much better time remaining focused and objective during my studies.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":51722.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1z5pkw","c_root_id_B":"h1w6ndm","created_at_utc_A":1623856443,"created_at_utc_B":1623791061,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"They tend not to focus on the cultural impacts of biologically driven diseases. They also are very culturally limited in their scope. For example, assisting with ADHD they don't understand the evolutionary mechanisms that lead to ADHD and how those mechanisms, given another cultural framework, would be an asset. Same goes for a lot of other mental illnesses. For example: How a reclusive person may actually be a good thing in a situation such as, I don't know, a pandemic. Their lens is very narrow.","human_ref_B":"Nominalbiped gave you a great answer. I was going to say just try to relax while there an go with the flow. In the end your therapist is a verified stranger, and sometimes it's much easier to open up to people you don't know who usually are guaranteed not to pass judgement. I didn't get past a BA in anthropology, but I did get my masters in social work. I have my foot in many doors. I find therapy works better for me know because I have a better understanding of what my therapist is doing and why. I also understand the methodology behind it, what we're hoping to achieve, etc. Makes buy-in better, or I know sooner that this particular approach isn't going to work so let's try something else, or even a knew therapist if necessary. Good luck! I hope you find a good one. Remember you can change therapists if need be, if it's not working out. Be upfront about your hesitations because they will play a role in your work together, and your therapist should know so they can approach things with you in a more comfortable manner. I think it's really cool you asked.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":65382.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"o0lfdy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Going to therapy as an anthropologist Hi Everybody This might be an arrogant or uninformed question, but i'm an anthropology grad student who researches education and autism among other things. I'm curious how, as an anthropologist, one approaches going to therapy\/counselling as I'm about to start for the first time. I'm just a little concerned about opening up given the fact that most of my experiences engaging with therapy\/psychology academically have been critical or negative and I have a degree of distrust. I don't want to spend every session being judgmental of their approaches, methods, and assumptions or trying to do their job for them from a different perspective; i'm sure therapy is far better than my half-informed perception of it is or at least can help me as I seriously need it. How do you approach therapy sessions especially if your work involves being critical of the field at all? How do you put yourself in a more individually-oriented, self-help type of mindset? I know I'm being overly-critical, I just want to know peoples' experiences or the struggles they've had specifically because of their background. Thanks","c_root_id_A":"h1wivga","c_root_id_B":"h1z5pkw","created_at_utc_A":1623796800,"created_at_utc_B":1623856443,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I went in focused more on results and less on the specific methodology. I've had my fair share of useless therapists and it took a while to find a good one. And since I'm exposed to new age woo and \"alternative\" medicine from my family therapy now seems much more reasonable.","human_ref_B":"They tend not to focus on the cultural impacts of biologically driven diseases. They also are very culturally limited in their scope. For example, assisting with ADHD they don't understand the evolutionary mechanisms that lead to ADHD and how those mechanisms, given another cultural framework, would be an asset. Same goes for a lot of other mental illnesses. For example: How a reclusive person may actually be a good thing in a situation such as, I don't know, a pandemic. Their lens is very narrow.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":59643.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"bxy8ht","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Where did the concept of brushing your teeth originate from? How long ago was it first practiced?","c_root_id_A":"eqaon0g","c_root_id_B":"eqavqjd","created_at_utc_A":1559936966,"created_at_utc_B":1559940777,"score_A":31,"score_B":71,"human_ref_A":"Not an anthropologist by any means, but I know the Romans brushed their teeth with their fingers and water, which was most likely a method used for a long time before that. In some of Catullus\u2019s poems, he describes a man who has bright white teeth (which was a rarity at the time) showing them off. However, at the end of the poem, Catullus acknowledges that e brushed his teeth with his own urine. It\u2019s hard to say that had no basis in fact. Edit: punctuation.","human_ref_B":"I'm excited to see an in-depth answer to this question from someone more versed in the topic, but for what it's worth I know about the miswak stick, a 7000+ year old stick used in the Middle East to clean teeth. It's basically a nice soft stick that splits into \"bristles\" at one end, so you use it as a kind of combo between a toothbrush and a toothpick. I had a Saudi friend that was obsessed with these and said it was the world's oldest toothbrush, but that may be a false claim.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3811.0,"score_ratio":2.2903225806} +{"post_id":"bxy8ht","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Where did the concept of brushing your teeth originate from? How long ago was it first practiced?","c_root_id_A":"eqbxt2b","c_root_id_B":"eqbo871","created_at_utc_A":1559958602,"created_at_utc_B":1559952036,"score_A":25,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Oral hygiene, of which tooth-brushing is a part, can be traced back 130,000 years to toothpicks used by Neanderthals. It also may be be pre-human, after a Capuchin monkey was observed using a toothpick.","human_ref_B":"I remember the pee brushing from somewhere or other. The ammonia strips the teeth of enamel, BUT makes your whites pearly, and your breath golden!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6566.0,"score_ratio":5.0} +{"post_id":"xpx9rf","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"In Matriarchal societies, do men still tend to commit most acts of violence? I've heard it argued that the reason men commit more acts of violence than women is because of patriarchy. Is this true, or do men still commit most of the violence even when women are in charge?","c_root_id_A":"iq8lgzd","c_root_id_B":"iq91xck","created_at_utc_A":1664374906,"created_at_utc_B":1664381505,"score_A":42,"score_B":72,"human_ref_A":"Describing a society as \"matriarchal\" is essentially to say that its women assume the same roles as men do in most of Europe. Since those roles are often based on acts of violence, you could argue that a society cannot be \"matriarchal\" without them assuming the role that commits the most acts of violence. You might argue that that's not essential to the kind of leadership that \"-archy\" implies, which in my view opens up an ultimately unanswerable debate as to what actually is \"leadership.\" This is why most anthropologists avoid the term \"matriarchy.\" The question of \"are women or men 'in charge'\" is ultimately kind of fruitless compared to describing how men and women behave within a people group","human_ref_B":"So I'm no expert, but from what I've read this is topic is way too multi-faceted for a simple answer. For one thing, there are no matriarchal societies that we know of. There are egalitarian societies, matrilineal and\/or matrifocal societies, but none of them are defined as a matriarchy. As for male violence, research does show that while testosterone may have a part in aggression, in actuality it plays only a minor role. Spotted hyenas are one of the few matriarchal mammals living on earth today, where the females are notoriously larger and more aggressive. While initially we assumed that meant the females had more testestorone, studies have shown that is not the case! Though even here it seems more complex than that. Apparently, androgens or 'male' hormones like testosterone are present in high amounts for hyena fetuses, which does cause pups to be highly aggressive to each other, to the point of killing the other pup (where hyenas are typically born in pairs). It does peter out as the pups grow, which at that point the hyper-aggression of female spotted hyenas seems to be caused mostly by socialization. What does this mean for human societies? Links between male hormones and aggression has been studied and debated for years now. And again, I'm no expert, but studies I've come across shows that the majority of violence behaviors are indeed less physiological and more social. Despite that, there is no evidence that shows that in any recorded society, women commit more violent acts than men. But there are instances where they do come close. In some Aboriginal Australian communities, women are known to commit almost half of violent disputes. https:\/\/openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au\/handle\/1885\/9550 In the book \"Troubled Times: Violence and Warfare in the Past\" which I've only read an excerpt from, compares archeological finds in sustained injuries and notes that \"women in these Aborigine societies both inflict and receive the majority of sub-lethal cranial injuries.\" Again, no expert. But the conclusion does seem to be that violence is mostly socialized, though there could still be more to it, considering that even with the varying social attitudes around who can or can't act violently, when violence is acceptable and when it's not, etc. men are still indeed the leading demographic that commits the most acts, regardless of the time period and culture.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6599.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143} +{"post_id":"wqy8hy","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"What is the largest human society or settlement that could be invisible to archeology given our current techniques? What is the largest human society that could be archaeologically hidden using current techniques? What I mean is that a lot of what we are able to tell about ancient human societies\/cultures\/etc is through archeology, and good preservation relies on a lot of factors such as use of durable materials like pottery or stone, good preservation conditions, amount of work done in a particular area, and amount of disruption of the area surveyed by natural and man-made processes. With that said, has anyone assess, roughly the largest human society that, through a confluence of unlucky archeological conditions we could be unaware of? Like, presumably, the further one goes back chronologically, the larger something could be obscured from archeology, and the less work done in particular places, the larger something we could miss is as well? I was thinking about this because, based on current surveillance methods, we have a reasonably good idea of the distance at which we can rule out astronomical bodies, as in, \u201cwe know there\u2019s nothing bigger than Jupiter out to X distance, and nothing bigger than the the earth out to X smaller distance.\u201d Is there some idea of the boundary of human settlement or society that we could reasonably miss at a particular period? Like, presumably, even if it was 20k years ago, under the worst conditions we\u2019d still see a polity the size of China, and even if it were a few hundred years ago, there are easily settlements or micropolities a hundred people strong we could easily not know about. Do we have any idea of where the kind of boundary line is? Like, how big a polity could conceivably be hidden y bad preservation, use of non-durable materials like bamboo, and happening to be in a non-thoroughly surveyed areas?","c_root_id_A":"iksvilh","c_root_id_B":"ikslu1g","created_at_utc_A":1660833944,"created_at_utc_B":1660830009,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"As recently as five years ago, the apparently extensive complex society that occupied a significant area of the Amazon Basin, and that constructed causeways and other monumental infrastructure, was essentially undetected \/ unknown. We're only now learning about that region thanks to the expansion of LiDAR, and improvements to that technology, that enable it to more effectively penetrate year-round canopy.","human_ref_B":"Not sure if this is allowed, but this is a great video about this subject from kurzgesagt Tl;dr: there are several large blocks in history where a massive continent spanning civilization could evolve, civilize, and be wiped out without leaving any evidence whatsoever. We\u2019re talking 100\u2019s millions of years ago, and only if they never industrialized.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3935.0,"score_ratio":1.25} +{"post_id":"j816hb","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"In the simplest terms possible, what does Foucault mean by 'discourse' ? I just can't wrap my brains around it","c_root_id_A":"g88ygao","c_root_id_B":"g88j4it","created_at_utc_A":1602273518,"created_at_utc_B":1602265306,"score_A":107,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"Contra some of the suggestions here, discourse is not just particular ways of talking, writing and thinking about something. Foucault has something more specific in mind than that. Star Wars fans have a particular way of talking, thinking and writing about Star Wars but that is not really a discourse in Foucauldian terms. A discourse is a particular way of talking, writing and thinking within a particular institutional (or multi-institutional) system that both reflects and directs the particular forms of power associated with that institution. So, for example, the particular way that prison guards, judges, district attorneys, prisoners themselves, political leaders, designers of security systems, bureaucrats and even wider publics talk, think and write about prisons and all of the associated systems that connect to prisons (criminal codes, courts, policing, etc.) You might at this point say, \"So what? Of course people within particular institutions have specialized professional terminologies, terms of art, and so on, and of course people in general have some model or vision of what happens in those institutions\". You could do a social history of prisons that analyzes all those documents and explains the technical jargon and yet not be thinking the way Foucault thinks about a discourse. So it is more still just than specific ways of talking, thinking and writing within institutions. It comes back to \"reflects and directs power\". Foucault's poststructuralism descends out of a branch of linguistic and philosophical thought in which it became important to argue that there is no thought before or outside of language--that what we think is always created by and confined to language. So those particular ways of thinking and speaking within prisons (for one example) for Foucault are not evidence of or expressive of forms of power, authority or practice within prisons, they ***are*** power. They don't come after the prison is established; they establish the prison as an institution. They don't come from human beings who have a prior social existence or a prior set of political or economic interests; the discourse makes the human subjects who exist within and in relation to prisons. We don't decide to represent prisoners in some strategic way in order to establish, reform or abolish prisons; the representations make the prison and make the prisoners, they define and circumscribe what prisons do and how we are made as subjects in relationship to prisons. This is a hard idea to grasp not so much because it is complicated but because it contradicts or contests how most of us most of the time prefer to think of ourselves as political and social subjects. When we think of wanting to talk, speak or think about a concept like the prison, we imagine ourselves to be the masterful authors of those thoughts and we imagine ourselves to have strategic or conscious aims in speaking that way. Foucault makes it hard to think of human agency in those terms, which is one reason he could often be frustratingly indirect or abstruse when he was asked what he wanted people to do about prisons or madness or sexuality etc. There is a kind of \"soft Foucauldian\" description of discourse that you can work with that doesn't fully take on board his whole critique, and that's what you often see in academic writing--an argument that particular institutions are bound to particular ways of thinking and speaking and that those terms and concepts in some sense \"rule\" those institutions and the people within them, in ways they are not entirely aware of or able to control. In the case of prisons, for example, you could look at how prisons encode certain ideas of control, punishment, isolation, etc. almost necessarily and that these ideas precede and supercede what any given leader, administrator, employee or prisoner within a prison might want to think about policies or actions they will advocate or follow. A \"soft\" theory of discourse in a Foucauldian vein might stress how much specialized ways of talking and speaking are a hard constraint on what human subjects can do in the same way that some material conditions are a hard constraint--you can't grow crops in a desert and you can't take actions within a closed system that a discourse has no way to represent, imagine or articulate.","human_ref_B":"The way people talk, think, and write about something. All that talking, thinking, and writing ultimately *is* the thing so far as society is concerned, and it shapes the way we in turn think and behave. It shapes what we see as real, as possible, as impossible, and as forbidden. We can tell what discourses are and how they change by being archaeologists, of a sort, digging through layers of those discussions in history. As we look backward, we can see discourses forming, changing, and supplanting each other. Take the way we think, talk, and write about \"punishment,\" for instance -- that shifts dramatically across time, until we get something like the 19th century prison. You wake up and go to bed at orderly times, guards are (potentially) always watching, and individuals are disciplined into becoming better members of industrial society. We can locate, in the way people talk and write and think about punishment and prisons, what society things a good individual is. That idea in turn shapes the way people even discipline themselves into good citizens.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8212.0,"score_ratio":2.2765957447} +{"post_id":"j816hb","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"In the simplest terms possible, what does Foucault mean by 'discourse' ? I just can't wrap my brains around it","c_root_id_A":"g88e4s0","c_root_id_B":"g88ygao","created_at_utc_A":1602262697,"created_at_utc_B":1602273518,"score_A":10,"score_B":107,"human_ref_A":"If you are struggling with the concept try going from the particular to the general. Maybe start with political discourse and what it means. How is separated from a wider concept of social discourse and a narrower concept like, let\u2019s say, personal identity discourse but also how it\u2019s not political speech. Maybe this example may help. When they created Twitter I wrote somewhere that it was going to degrade social and political discourse because complex ideas can\u2019t be discussed in 280 characters. Fast forward to current day United States and the degradation of the complexity of the ideas discussed. The totality of the ideas and the context in which they are discussed is the current political discourse.","human_ref_B":"Contra some of the suggestions here, discourse is not just particular ways of talking, writing and thinking about something. Foucault has something more specific in mind than that. Star Wars fans have a particular way of talking, thinking and writing about Star Wars but that is not really a discourse in Foucauldian terms. A discourse is a particular way of talking, writing and thinking within a particular institutional (or multi-institutional) system that both reflects and directs the particular forms of power associated with that institution. So, for example, the particular way that prison guards, judges, district attorneys, prisoners themselves, political leaders, designers of security systems, bureaucrats and even wider publics talk, think and write about prisons and all of the associated systems that connect to prisons (criminal codes, courts, policing, etc.) You might at this point say, \"So what? Of course people within particular institutions have specialized professional terminologies, terms of art, and so on, and of course people in general have some model or vision of what happens in those institutions\". You could do a social history of prisons that analyzes all those documents and explains the technical jargon and yet not be thinking the way Foucault thinks about a discourse. So it is more still just than specific ways of talking, thinking and writing within institutions. It comes back to \"reflects and directs power\". Foucault's poststructuralism descends out of a branch of linguistic and philosophical thought in which it became important to argue that there is no thought before or outside of language--that what we think is always created by and confined to language. So those particular ways of thinking and speaking within prisons (for one example) for Foucault are not evidence of or expressive of forms of power, authority or practice within prisons, they ***are*** power. They don't come after the prison is established; they establish the prison as an institution. They don't come from human beings who have a prior social existence or a prior set of political or economic interests; the discourse makes the human subjects who exist within and in relation to prisons. We don't decide to represent prisoners in some strategic way in order to establish, reform or abolish prisons; the representations make the prison and make the prisoners, they define and circumscribe what prisons do and how we are made as subjects in relationship to prisons. This is a hard idea to grasp not so much because it is complicated but because it contradicts or contests how most of us most of the time prefer to think of ourselves as political and social subjects. When we think of wanting to talk, speak or think about a concept like the prison, we imagine ourselves to be the masterful authors of those thoughts and we imagine ourselves to have strategic or conscious aims in speaking that way. Foucault makes it hard to think of human agency in those terms, which is one reason he could often be frustratingly indirect or abstruse when he was asked what he wanted people to do about prisons or madness or sexuality etc. There is a kind of \"soft Foucauldian\" description of discourse that you can work with that doesn't fully take on board his whole critique, and that's what you often see in academic writing--an argument that particular institutions are bound to particular ways of thinking and speaking and that those terms and concepts in some sense \"rule\" those institutions and the people within them, in ways they are not entirely aware of or able to control. In the case of prisons, for example, you could look at how prisons encode certain ideas of control, punishment, isolation, etc. almost necessarily and that these ideas precede and supercede what any given leader, administrator, employee or prisoner within a prison might want to think about policies or actions they will advocate or follow. A \"soft\" theory of discourse in a Foucauldian vein might stress how much specialized ways of talking and speaking are a hard constraint on what human subjects can do in the same way that some material conditions are a hard constraint--you can't grow crops in a desert and you can't take actions within a closed system that a discourse has no way to represent, imagine or articulate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10821.0,"score_ratio":10.7} +{"post_id":"j816hb","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"In the simplest terms possible, what does Foucault mean by 'discourse' ? I just can't wrap my brains around it","c_root_id_A":"g88ygao","c_root_id_B":"g88in3f","created_at_utc_A":1602273518,"created_at_utc_B":1602265050,"score_A":107,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Contra some of the suggestions here, discourse is not just particular ways of talking, writing and thinking about something. Foucault has something more specific in mind than that. Star Wars fans have a particular way of talking, thinking and writing about Star Wars but that is not really a discourse in Foucauldian terms. A discourse is a particular way of talking, writing and thinking within a particular institutional (or multi-institutional) system that both reflects and directs the particular forms of power associated with that institution. So, for example, the particular way that prison guards, judges, district attorneys, prisoners themselves, political leaders, designers of security systems, bureaucrats and even wider publics talk, think and write about prisons and all of the associated systems that connect to prisons (criminal codes, courts, policing, etc.) You might at this point say, \"So what? Of course people within particular institutions have specialized professional terminologies, terms of art, and so on, and of course people in general have some model or vision of what happens in those institutions\". You could do a social history of prisons that analyzes all those documents and explains the technical jargon and yet not be thinking the way Foucault thinks about a discourse. So it is more still just than specific ways of talking, thinking and writing within institutions. It comes back to \"reflects and directs power\". Foucault's poststructuralism descends out of a branch of linguistic and philosophical thought in which it became important to argue that there is no thought before or outside of language--that what we think is always created by and confined to language. So those particular ways of thinking and speaking within prisons (for one example) for Foucault are not evidence of or expressive of forms of power, authority or practice within prisons, they ***are*** power. They don't come after the prison is established; they establish the prison as an institution. They don't come from human beings who have a prior social existence or a prior set of political or economic interests; the discourse makes the human subjects who exist within and in relation to prisons. We don't decide to represent prisoners in some strategic way in order to establish, reform or abolish prisons; the representations make the prison and make the prisoners, they define and circumscribe what prisons do and how we are made as subjects in relationship to prisons. This is a hard idea to grasp not so much because it is complicated but because it contradicts or contests how most of us most of the time prefer to think of ourselves as political and social subjects. When we think of wanting to talk, speak or think about a concept like the prison, we imagine ourselves to be the masterful authors of those thoughts and we imagine ourselves to have strategic or conscious aims in speaking that way. Foucault makes it hard to think of human agency in those terms, which is one reason he could often be frustratingly indirect or abstruse when he was asked what he wanted people to do about prisons or madness or sexuality etc. There is a kind of \"soft Foucauldian\" description of discourse that you can work with that doesn't fully take on board his whole critique, and that's what you often see in academic writing--an argument that particular institutions are bound to particular ways of thinking and speaking and that those terms and concepts in some sense \"rule\" those institutions and the people within them, in ways they are not entirely aware of or able to control. In the case of prisons, for example, you could look at how prisons encode certain ideas of control, punishment, isolation, etc. almost necessarily and that these ideas precede and supercede what any given leader, administrator, employee or prisoner within a prison might want to think about policies or actions they will advocate or follow. A \"soft\" theory of discourse in a Foucauldian vein might stress how much specialized ways of talking and speaking are a hard constraint on what human subjects can do in the same way that some material conditions are a hard constraint--you can't grow crops in a desert and you can't take actions within a closed system that a discourse has no way to represent, imagine or articulate.","human_ref_B":"We trust doctors (for example) because they use a lot of fancy words, a vocabulary (discourse) that excludes us from a full understanding of what they're talking about. Their language imbues them with a power and authority - not to say they don't deserve it! The same could be said for religion, politics, any authority.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8468.0,"score_ratio":21.4} +{"post_id":"j816hb","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"In the simplest terms possible, what does Foucault mean by 'discourse' ? I just can't wrap my brains around it","c_root_id_A":"g88k0kt","c_root_id_B":"g88ygao","created_at_utc_A":1602265769,"created_at_utc_B":1602273518,"score_A":6,"score_B":107,"human_ref_A":"All of the other comments are great! Here's an interesting video: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=mb02e2SYdGg&ab\\_channel=UniversityQuickCourse I also really love Philosophize This! (I think episode 121-123) on Spotify, that podcast does a wonderful job of explaining some of Foucault's concepts. Once you wrap your head around it (no shame, Foucault is a \"weirdy\" as one of my favorite professors said,) it can be really fascinating to \"think with!\"","human_ref_B":"Contra some of the suggestions here, discourse is not just particular ways of talking, writing and thinking about something. Foucault has something more specific in mind than that. Star Wars fans have a particular way of talking, thinking and writing about Star Wars but that is not really a discourse in Foucauldian terms. A discourse is a particular way of talking, writing and thinking within a particular institutional (or multi-institutional) system that both reflects and directs the particular forms of power associated with that institution. So, for example, the particular way that prison guards, judges, district attorneys, prisoners themselves, political leaders, designers of security systems, bureaucrats and even wider publics talk, think and write about prisons and all of the associated systems that connect to prisons (criminal codes, courts, policing, etc.) You might at this point say, \"So what? Of course people within particular institutions have specialized professional terminologies, terms of art, and so on, and of course people in general have some model or vision of what happens in those institutions\". You could do a social history of prisons that analyzes all those documents and explains the technical jargon and yet not be thinking the way Foucault thinks about a discourse. So it is more still just than specific ways of talking, thinking and writing within institutions. It comes back to \"reflects and directs power\". Foucault's poststructuralism descends out of a branch of linguistic and philosophical thought in which it became important to argue that there is no thought before or outside of language--that what we think is always created by and confined to language. So those particular ways of thinking and speaking within prisons (for one example) for Foucault are not evidence of or expressive of forms of power, authority or practice within prisons, they ***are*** power. They don't come after the prison is established; they establish the prison as an institution. They don't come from human beings who have a prior social existence or a prior set of political or economic interests; the discourse makes the human subjects who exist within and in relation to prisons. We don't decide to represent prisoners in some strategic way in order to establish, reform or abolish prisons; the representations make the prison and make the prisoners, they define and circumscribe what prisons do and how we are made as subjects in relationship to prisons. This is a hard idea to grasp not so much because it is complicated but because it contradicts or contests how most of us most of the time prefer to think of ourselves as political and social subjects. When we think of wanting to talk, speak or think about a concept like the prison, we imagine ourselves to be the masterful authors of those thoughts and we imagine ourselves to have strategic or conscious aims in speaking that way. Foucault makes it hard to think of human agency in those terms, which is one reason he could often be frustratingly indirect or abstruse when he was asked what he wanted people to do about prisons or madness or sexuality etc. There is a kind of \"soft Foucauldian\" description of discourse that you can work with that doesn't fully take on board his whole critique, and that's what you often see in academic writing--an argument that particular institutions are bound to particular ways of thinking and speaking and that those terms and concepts in some sense \"rule\" those institutions and the people within them, in ways they are not entirely aware of or able to control. In the case of prisons, for example, you could look at how prisons encode certain ideas of control, punishment, isolation, etc. almost necessarily and that these ideas precede and supercede what any given leader, administrator, employee or prisoner within a prison might want to think about policies or actions they will advocate or follow. A \"soft\" theory of discourse in a Foucauldian vein might stress how much specialized ways of talking and speaking are a hard constraint on what human subjects can do in the same way that some material conditions are a hard constraint--you can't grow crops in a desert and you can't take actions within a closed system that a discourse has no way to represent, imagine or articulate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7749.0,"score_ratio":17.8333333333} +{"post_id":"j816hb","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"In the simplest terms possible, what does Foucault mean by 'discourse' ? I just can't wrap my brains around it","c_root_id_A":"g88e4s0","c_root_id_B":"g88j4it","created_at_utc_A":1602262697,"created_at_utc_B":1602265306,"score_A":10,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"If you are struggling with the concept try going from the particular to the general. Maybe start with political discourse and what it means. How is separated from a wider concept of social discourse and a narrower concept like, let\u2019s say, personal identity discourse but also how it\u2019s not political speech. Maybe this example may help. When they created Twitter I wrote somewhere that it was going to degrade social and political discourse because complex ideas can\u2019t be discussed in 280 characters. Fast forward to current day United States and the degradation of the complexity of the ideas discussed. The totality of the ideas and the context in which they are discussed is the current political discourse.","human_ref_B":"The way people talk, think, and write about something. All that talking, thinking, and writing ultimately *is* the thing so far as society is concerned, and it shapes the way we in turn think and behave. It shapes what we see as real, as possible, as impossible, and as forbidden. We can tell what discourses are and how they change by being archaeologists, of a sort, digging through layers of those discussions in history. As we look backward, we can see discourses forming, changing, and supplanting each other. Take the way we think, talk, and write about \"punishment,\" for instance -- that shifts dramatically across time, until we get something like the 19th century prison. You wake up and go to bed at orderly times, guards are (potentially) always watching, and individuals are disciplined into becoming better members of industrial society. We can locate, in the way people talk and write and think about punishment and prisons, what society things a good individual is. That idea in turn shapes the way people even discipline themselves into good citizens.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2609.0,"score_ratio":4.7} +{"post_id":"j816hb","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"In the simplest terms possible, what does Foucault mean by 'discourse' ? I just can't wrap my brains around it","c_root_id_A":"g88in3f","c_root_id_B":"g88j4it","created_at_utc_A":1602265050,"created_at_utc_B":1602265306,"score_A":5,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"We trust doctors (for example) because they use a lot of fancy words, a vocabulary (discourse) that excludes us from a full understanding of what they're talking about. Their language imbues them with a power and authority - not to say they don't deserve it! The same could be said for religion, politics, any authority.","human_ref_B":"The way people talk, think, and write about something. All that talking, thinking, and writing ultimately *is* the thing so far as society is concerned, and it shapes the way we in turn think and behave. It shapes what we see as real, as possible, as impossible, and as forbidden. We can tell what discourses are and how they change by being archaeologists, of a sort, digging through layers of those discussions in history. As we look backward, we can see discourses forming, changing, and supplanting each other. Take the way we think, talk, and write about \"punishment,\" for instance -- that shifts dramatically across time, until we get something like the 19th century prison. You wake up and go to bed at orderly times, guards are (potentially) always watching, and individuals are disciplined into becoming better members of industrial society. We can locate, in the way people talk and write and think about punishment and prisons, what society things a good individual is. That idea in turn shapes the way people even discipline themselves into good citizens.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":256.0,"score_ratio":9.4} +{"post_id":"j816hb","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"In the simplest terms possible, what does Foucault mean by 'discourse' ? I just can't wrap my brains around it","c_root_id_A":"g88in3f","c_root_id_B":"g88k0kt","created_at_utc_A":1602265050,"created_at_utc_B":1602265769,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"We trust doctors (for example) because they use a lot of fancy words, a vocabulary (discourse) that excludes us from a full understanding of what they're talking about. Their language imbues them with a power and authority - not to say they don't deserve it! The same could be said for religion, politics, any authority.","human_ref_B":"All of the other comments are great! Here's an interesting video: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=mb02e2SYdGg&ab\\_channel=UniversityQuickCourse I also really love Philosophize This! (I think episode 121-123) on Spotify, that podcast does a wonderful job of explaining some of Foucault's concepts. Once you wrap your head around it (no shame, Foucault is a \"weirdy\" as one of my favorite professors said,) it can be really fascinating to \"think with!\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":719.0,"score_ratio":1.2} +{"post_id":"lgwcv1","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"What to do with my degree? I\u2019m finishing up my BA in Anthropology this fall. I also have a minor in Business Administration and a certificate in Environmental Studies. I\u2019m trying to decide what I want to do next. I know that whatever I do will probably lead to grad school first, which is something I\u2019ve planned for. But now I\u2019m not sure exactly what I want to do. What are the best career paths for someone with a degree in anth? I\u2019ve considered law school and cultural heritage management, so I\u2019m open to a wide variety of careers.","c_root_id_A":"gmus0n4","c_root_id_B":"gmusmnd","created_at_utc_A":1612987174,"created_at_utc_B":1612987438,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I was a history major, with a business minor. Worked in sales for a few years (real estate and then for a marina), and now I\u2019m in law school! Let me know if you have any questions!","human_ref_B":"I love public sector CRM so much, and it sounds like with your background that that would be a great avenue. I think working for a government agency who potentially specializes in both cultural and natural resources could be extremely fun and fulfilling.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":264.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} +{"post_id":"5gn1yb","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"In the United States, outdoor grilling is stereotypically a male activity while historically other forms of cooking (outside of a professional kitchen) were stereotypically female activities. Why is grilling and barbecue stereotypically male? Examples here and here.","c_root_id_A":"datxxfs","c_root_id_B":"datsfam","created_at_utc_A":1480977173,"created_at_utc_B":1480970806,"score_A":43,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"It has a lot to do with our views of gender and leisure. As u\/Storm-born explained, there is definitely a division between cooking as necessity and cooking for leisure\/pleasure. It also has a lot to do with what is being cooked (meat). As Heinz and Lee discuss in \"Getting Down to the Meat,\" we as a culture associate meat eating with masculinity. Think about the environments of steakhouses: most often decorated in a masculine fashion, popular destination for businessmen. When the Atkins diet became popular in the mid-2000s, how many jokes did we hear about there 'finally' being a diet men could eat? There are other forms of leisure cooking that are equally gendered, such as baking. But since that rarely involves meat and is still within the domain of the kitchen it is heavily associated with women. It's also worth noting that gender divisions like this often rely and feed into the myth that the hunter\/gather model is a determining model for contemporary society. It's not. The Victorians started championing the inevitability\/naturalness of male\/female gender labor divisions when men started working outside the home in factories; using hunter\/gatherers as part of their evidence. That narrative saw a resurgence in the 1950s, with the rise of the leisure class.","human_ref_B":"Pierre Bourdieu in \"Masculine Domination\" sets on a study of fundamental forms of gender as a symbolic violence relation. Part his thesis is that gender exists as a relational symbolic structure where, by definition, the masculine is in opposition to the feminine. This, he argues, is one of the fundamental symbolic divisions that shape our habitus in society. Because there is a relational function between opposite genders, the group he studies have clear divisions about what is connaturally masculine and connaturally feminine. He would go to say that many of the opposite pairs are common across human civilization. In this interpretation of things, the kitchen is is feminine because it's part of the 'home' domain, which is opposite to the outside, which is a masculine domain. The division is, according to Bourdieu, observable. Barbecuing is a masculine task because it takes place in the outside , and on an open flame. As \/u\/Storm-born points out, it is related to the act of hunting, and it is possibly the easiest form of cooking when you have meat but are away from home.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6367.0,"score_ratio":3.0714285714} +{"post_id":"5gn1yb","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"In the United States, outdoor grilling is stereotypically a male activity while historically other forms of cooking (outside of a professional kitchen) were stereotypically female activities. Why is grilling and barbecue stereotypically male? Examples here and here.","c_root_id_A":"datsfam","c_root_id_B":"dauc8zx","created_at_utc_A":1480970806,"created_at_utc_B":1480996031,"score_A":14,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Pierre Bourdieu in \"Masculine Domination\" sets on a study of fundamental forms of gender as a symbolic violence relation. Part his thesis is that gender exists as a relational symbolic structure where, by definition, the masculine is in opposition to the feminine. This, he argues, is one of the fundamental symbolic divisions that shape our habitus in society. Because there is a relational function between opposite genders, the group he studies have clear divisions about what is connaturally masculine and connaturally feminine. He would go to say that many of the opposite pairs are common across human civilization. In this interpretation of things, the kitchen is is feminine because it's part of the 'home' domain, which is opposite to the outside, which is a masculine domain. The division is, according to Bourdieu, observable. Barbecuing is a masculine task because it takes place in the outside , and on an open flame. As \/u\/Storm-born points out, it is related to the act of hunting, and it is possibly the easiest form of cooking when you have meat but are away from home.","human_ref_B":"This is one of those things that often gets an evo psych explanation based on the notion of men as hunter and women as gatherer. It's true that grlling in the US is an activity more commonly done by men, and it's certainly marketed to be so by companies like Weber and Kingsford. However, historically, cooking, including open fire meat preperation was primarily done by women. Current trends in grilling and BBQ seem to be linked to post WWII marketing tactics aimed at returning GI's. It was meant as a way to tap in to the type of cooking soldiers would have been doing abroad while also selling them another appliance for their new government subsidized ticky tacky suburban home and backyard which would generally already have a full range and oven in the kitchen for the \"little woman\" That marketing and stereotype have stuck around since then, though the message has since gotten a little confused as seen in the forbes article about men and grilling which seems to be more of a clickbaity confirmation of already held notions than anything to do with actual research.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25225.0,"score_ratio":1.0714285714} +{"post_id":"5gn1yb","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"In the United States, outdoor grilling is stereotypically a male activity while historically other forms of cooking (outside of a professional kitchen) were stereotypically female activities. Why is grilling and barbecue stereotypically male? Examples here and here.","c_root_id_A":"dauc8zx","c_root_id_B":"dau80z5","created_at_utc_A":1480996031,"created_at_utc_B":1480990451,"score_A":15,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"This is one of those things that often gets an evo psych explanation based on the notion of men as hunter and women as gatherer. It's true that grlling in the US is an activity more commonly done by men, and it's certainly marketed to be so by companies like Weber and Kingsford. However, historically, cooking, including open fire meat preperation was primarily done by women. Current trends in grilling and BBQ seem to be linked to post WWII marketing tactics aimed at returning GI's. It was meant as a way to tap in to the type of cooking soldiers would have been doing abroad while also selling them another appliance for their new government subsidized ticky tacky suburban home and backyard which would generally already have a full range and oven in the kitchen for the \"little woman\" That marketing and stereotype have stuck around since then, though the message has since gotten a little confused as seen in the forbes article about men and grilling which seems to be more of a clickbaity confirmation of already held notions than anything to do with actual research.","human_ref_B":"Wouldn't this fall under the \"feasting\" category? In many cultures men traditionally prepare feasts as opposed to regular meals. I would say \"grilling\" as we understand it today is similar to feasting. *Edit* I can't find a single source for this. Either I dreamed it up and you can ignore it or someone else can hook me up with a reference!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5580.0,"score_ratio":1.875} +{"post_id":"dh3evu","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Can anyone explain to me why some people, like myself, have rounded ends on our frontal teeth while others have flat and straight across teeth? Any information is truly appreciated as it has been driving me crazy.","c_root_id_A":"f3ijm9a","c_root_id_B":"f3ihr41","created_at_utc_A":1570937581,"created_at_utc_B":1570936781,"score_A":33,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"They\u2019re called mamelons. Teeth grow in with the bumps and biting down and eating usually wears them away, but sometimes they don\u2019t get worn away. That\u2019s why children with new teeth have the bumps","human_ref_B":"Could you elaborate on what you mean by rounded ends versus flat\/straight across? The answer could be more suited to dentists as it could be affected by occlusion and\/or grinding on an individual level.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":800.0,"score_ratio":3.0} +{"post_id":"zs65je","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"How far back could a modern human travel in time and still successfully integrate? Could one possibly integrate with Homo heidelbergensis or an even older ancestor?","c_root_id_A":"j17vlj9","c_root_id_B":"j17dxav","created_at_utc_A":1671698633,"created_at_utc_B":1671685893,"score_A":12,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Both early sapiens and neanderthals (possibly denisovans) were very intelligent and capable of speech. That makes me feel that their common ancestor (IF its Heildebergensis, it keeps changing) should be fairly intelligent and social as well. They were probably intelligent enough that they could live a normal life nowadays, in my opinion. Even if they were less intelligent many people nowadays is not that intelligent and still fits well in our society. So I do not see why not. Of course the problem would be integrating them in the sense that you would clearly see that they are not sapiens. But I don't know if you ment that or just being able to live with us. Even if you go further, Erectus was able to use fire, travel all over the known world and build rafts to get to islands (so they must have some basic speech at least). We do not know how intelligent they were but they might have been capable to live in our society even if they were less smart. But that is less likely I feel.","human_ref_B":"I mean- wrong sub, I guess, but- the goto for this answer is generally looking at genetically identical homo sapiens sapiens which go back around, *blows air through lips* 315 to 200 thousand years ago? Quite the range but this isn't exactly an easy question- that span of years also spans different regions, as our modern human ancestors spread out in fits and starts. BUT I think, given the known interbreeding with Neanderthal and the other two, your hypothical time traveler might not have to worry about blending in too much: early hominids of all kinds seemed interested in intimate social relations, as long as you could breach that inital violent mistrust. I suggest food sharing and music, and maybe don't bare your teeth.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12740.0,"score_ratio":1.0909090909} +{"post_id":"26a9h8","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"The modern human has been around for approximately 150,000 years (depending on the estimate). Yet the first major civilizations we talk about are only 4-5 thousand years ago. Is there any evidence of \"pre-ancient\" civilizations before that? It doesn't seem unlikely that in 146,000 or so years of \"pre-history\" there has been major civilizations which have simply not left enough evidence to be properly recognized in modern discussion.","c_root_id_A":"chp6jex","c_root_id_B":"chp8om3","created_at_utc_A":1400847413,"created_at_utc_B":1400854338,"score_A":21,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"It really depends on what you define as civilisation. As another poster pointed out, it was only around 10,000 years ago that agriculture was beginning to be picked up (Neolithic revolution). Farming meant a few changes, namely far more labour than hunting gathering (hg) but could feed a larger population per piece of land. Of course this didn't happen straight away - you had semi-sedentary populations beginning to use plants and animals (starting the domestication process) before fully settling down to agriculture. If complex societies existed before the Neolithic and made use of crops or animals - then we would see it in skull shape\/form and the Genetic evidence. So it's not all about leaving pieces behind. As for your point about leaving evidence, it assumes that progress we have now is universal. In reality many factors contributes to the increasing development of human beings - I would argue meant that not only were the humans 150,000years ago very different from ourselves but the environmental pressures and subsistence strategies didn't allow for either a) the formation of complex society or b) the creation of material remains that would signify such a society. It is likely there were large kingroups and certainly trading went on between groups. I'm on mobile atm - I'll go find some references later if you are interested.","human_ref_B":"Be really careful about how you use the term \"civilization.\" Most archaeologists I know have simply stopped using* it because it is a very loaded term (e.g. \"civilized\" vs. not, which often has very strong Eurocentric undertones). It is ok as a purely descriptive term, but it is only descriptive. All societies are societies. Some come together in larger cities and build big things out of stone so we can still see them today. At what point does one become a \"civilization?\" Basically what I'm getting at, is that civilization is a term defined entirely by us to refer to something that is really a difference of degree, rather than a difference of kind. Though cool things happen in the places we call \"civilizations\" and it's those places that I like to study. But other than pushing back your 4-5kya year range to about 10-12kya, as other posters have done, no, there's no evidence of \"pre-ancient\" \"civilizations.\" While it is impossible to prove that something did not exist (we can only say that we don't have evidence for it), at this point there is enough data and we have done enough work around the world that it is fairly safe to say that it is not likely that there were any major centralized societies in the deep deep past. I could see the earliest dates for things being pushed back even as far as 20,000 years ago in a few rare places, but there is no evidence that there were a plethora of complex societies that then collapsed 75,000 years ago or anything like that. I'm sure there were large hunter-gatherer communities and people had rituals and creation stories and complex oral histories and all that, but there were no cities or massive monumental works built of non-perishable material or things that are typically associated with what we call \"civilization.\" *Except Bruce Trigger, he still used it in one of his last books. And he was the best, so I'll forgive that one. But check it out, Bruce Trigger \"Understanding Early Civilizations.\" Very comprehensive books by one of the best archaeologists around.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6925.0,"score_ratio":1.4761904762} +{"post_id":"e72noh","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What was the purpose of bog sacrifices and why were they so widespread? And if this is due to Celtic religion, how come it survived in the exact same way in places very far apart such a long time ago?","c_root_id_A":"f9way8v","c_root_id_B":"f9w4gp4","created_at_utc_A":1575689799,"created_at_utc_B":1575686847,"score_A":25,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"At least one body, Lindow Man, shows evidence of suffering the tripartite death, a theme in proto-Indo European myth. If there is a unifying theme it is probably to be found in proto-Indo European conceptions and rituals of human sacrifice that would have been common to both Celtic and Germanic myth. Many of the bodies though have a mysterious provenance and may simply be artefacts of survivorship bias in ecologies containing boglands.","human_ref_B":"It just seems more widespread. The bog bodies are preserved well, most all other types of sacrifices (or whatever caused them to come to rest there) are not preserved well, as they decompose. No evidence left behind compared to some evidence makes a smaller number, seem larger.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2952.0,"score_ratio":1.3888888889} +{"post_id":"8xx9sk","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Is the traditional use of mind-altering or intoxicating substances found in all societies throughout history, or have there been societies that seemingly never developed such practices?","c_root_id_A":"e27653c","c_root_id_B":"e26rf40","created_at_utc_A":1531325844,"created_at_utc_B":1531312638,"score_A":46,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"I think it\u2019s important to remember that altered states of consciousness may be entered using a variety of means and not always through the use of entheogens. Chanting, rhythmic drumming and fasting all were used to reach altered states of consciousness in cultures in the Arctic and in other areas of North America. The use of sweat lodges in North America is another good example of entering an altered state without the use of the a mind-altering substance.","human_ref_B":"The ones who didn't have alcohol (Inuit) never developed the cultural ways to handle it. But they love it like any other human... and that's led to huge problems once it suddenly became available. Just read a story this morning about someone caught smuggling bladders of 95% pure alcohol into a dry far northern settlement.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13206.0,"score_ratio":2.0909090909} +{"post_id":"zzdokn","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can someone ELi5 what a dowry is, vs bride price, and why would anyone do each? Asking as a Millennial from Canada who did not grow up in this context, I'm looking to understand. Thanks.","c_root_id_A":"j2bvdeb","c_root_id_B":"j2cnzmo","created_at_utc_A":1672453905,"created_at_utc_B":1672469272,"score_A":9,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"Coming from a country where both are practiced (northish section uses bride price, south uses dowry). Problem occurs in major cities where all ethnic groups live in close proximity. Sometimes the kids of families that practice the opposite tradtion fall in love and becomes messy as both parties expect to get something for the marriage. At least here. Dowry is simple to explain. All family members live in a single house, regardless of age until they are married (sometimes they continue living with the parents even after marriage, but this is rare). The guy doesnt have any possessions as everything belongs to the parents\/house. Until he is single he is considered a kid and has no real say in the household decisions. Marriage is when he becomes a man. Usually the guy saves for a bit to cover the cost of the wedding. This leaves him without budget for buying household appliances. This is where the dowry comes in. The new couple gets a kick start in the shape of life's basic luxuries. However there is a certain aspect of \"getting something in return\" for taking a \"load off your hands\". 1 less mouth to feed\/clothe for the girls family. Bride price is really simple inho. Every unstance has had the thought pricess that goes, we fed and clothed a person for 20 years to then give her to your family. We expect to be paid. Almost the same as how someone raises something to then sell when they grow.","human_ref_B":"i\u2019ve lived for many years in Indonesia, including one year in West Sumatra where matrilineal inheritance and bride price is practised. right there, you\u2019ve got an interesting inversion of the classical understanding of inheritance and dowry. In this part of Indonesia, wealth passes through female hands mostly (although there\u2019s heaps of caveats and complications and exceptions) and while you wouldn\u2019t call it a feminist Paradise as such, it is a interesting and fascinating case study. Just as a side note, it\u2019s very strictly Islamic, so there you go. One of the big pieces of this puzzle that sort of makes it work is this custom called Merantau. When a young man comes of age, he is expected to leave the province and seek his fortunes in the big wide world. It\u2019s very risky and dashing and exciting and glamorous and dangerous all at once. those brave enough to Merantau often don\u2019t come back, possibly because of the risk, but more often because they settle down elsewhere in an area where there is more land and opportunity then in the relatively cramped confines of Western Sumatera. The ones that do often come home with a sizeable fortune that they have earned in their endeavours, alongside exotic languages, daring fashions, exciting stories, and so on. At this point, the family of a swooning young woman will be impressed by the returnee\u2019s hard-working attitude and resourcefulness and be prepared to put money on the table, not just literally but also figuratively, to have this clear asset as a part of their family. I should be clear that as a tradition it\u2019s largely changed and somewhat dominished from the past, and often only practised as a tokenistic nod to cultural heritage. It\u2019s definitely still practised though, and it\u2019s very much a part of the mentality of the people there, who want to know specifically what sort of stuff men are made of, and are willing to set standards and expectations. Some would call the money a commodification, but it might help to think of it as making qualities *measurable*. maybe. I love you to the moon and back is nice; but, here are 30 cattle to show how much I love you? *holy shit dude thats a lot of cattle*. To wrap up, I\u2019m not an anthropologist at all and I\u2019m only on this site to read. I rarely comment because I don\u2019t think my observations are of a sufficient calibre to be considered an expert, but hopefully this has given you a place to start for further reading if that something you want to do.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15367.0,"score_ratio":3.0} +{"post_id":"6a4bpr","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Why are thoughts about warefare and violence in early hunter-gatherer societies so divided? Some scientists say that H-G (hunter-gatherer) societies were egalitarian in every aspect (no social classes, sexes are equal etc). They often take example of !Kung people. !Kung people also have this kind of life philosophy which amongst other things considers any kind of violence childish. On the other side, some say the truth is totally opposite. They say the academia draws these conslusions influenced by modern-day politics. In their opinion, violence has its roots deep in humans, so the warfare was also common between the h-g bands. Now, they take example of some (or many?) h-g peoples from Papua New Guinea, Africa, and most famous Sentinelese islands people. So, whose side has more correct views? What are the facts (archeological) that support those views, because modern-day h-gs have been under heavy influence by agriculturalists, colonialists, or us from today's world society. So taking them as examples is not so reliable. By googling, I found an example of 10000 years old massacre on Ethiopian platau (I think..). And it is stated that it's the (evidence for) earliest act of \"mass-violence\" yet found. But that's not so long time ago, and around that time, people start to transition to sedentary way of life in some parts of the world. So, all these things and many others I read about h-gs on the internet, make me draw some kind of conclusion: * Early, paleolithic h-gs were very mobile, living in small bands, having no hierachical structure in their society and were pretty egalitarian * This was made possible because of low population density, and their lack of \"land owning\" concept * Hence, there was not much violence within the bands, but sporadic encounters between two bands could end up violently (out of fear mostly) * After becoming sedentary or semi-sedentary, they would need to protect their land from others, who could use up resources from their territory * Also this would enable other hgs to pillage the sedentary ones (even though they are non violent, individal hg communities could have different set of moral and religious believes, among them violent ones) Two qustions remain: how close is this view to the truth and why did people become sedentary?","c_root_id_A":"dhbole2","c_root_id_B":"dhbokni","created_at_utc_A":1494329820,"created_at_utc_B":1494329778,"score_A":13,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"The concept of an egalitarian lifestyle is attributed to anthropologists. A significant number of archaeologists do not believe that you can apply the social organization of modern groups to groups 100,000 years ago. Much for the same reasons you mention. Some archaeologist (I have met many but I don't know how widespread this view is) discard ethnoarchaeology as a field completely. If we look at the evidence there is not much which shows violence in the Paleolithic. But we also want to remember that we don't have that many Paleolithic remains. Specially not of the earlier species of hominids. It is extremely likely that a significant part of our view is based on this bias. But sitting around speculating does no one any good either, we have to go with what we have. Here is an article on the Shanidar 3 neanderthal, which shows some signs of potential interpersonal violence. It also discusses, or references, other similar cases. It's worth a look only to give you more to read. On the other hand, there is definite evidence of interpersonal violence (as shown above). We know that other primates show aggression and violence. There is really nothing to indicate that violence did not occur in the Paleolithic. The question is on which scale. Simply by going with population numbers it would appear obvious that violence could never have been on a large scale by post-Neolithic standards. At least not in the sense that we find dozens and dozens of dead littering the place. Though proportionally, if a group has 12 members and 4 are killed in a raid, that's pretty significant numbers for that group. But as I said, we lack the evidence. You also want to consider separating violence and warfare. Warfare suggests the purposeful attack on another group with the idea of making war. Is a simple raid warfare? Is one guy getting pissed off at another guy, rounding up some friends and going to kill that guy, warfare? Or does it have to be more structured? I don't know, I study plants and plants are all about peace and love. Warfare is as much as mindset as it is a result. Imagine if you have a personal vendetta against someone, you grab some friends to teach that dude a lesson. His friends get involved. Multiple people die or get injured. Archaeologically we'd probably infer that as warfare of some type. But it wasn't. So it's difficult to infer these things. My point is that you have to watch the terminology as the terminology matters. It sets your expectations. As for your own conclusions (it's more of a hypothesis really). Point 1 is speculation based on modern groups with significant issues showing this archaeologically. In essence, the argument is that since there were no permanent structures there would be no material evidence showing hierarchy. How do we know that the person who slept in that part of the cave wasn't more important than the other and slept there because that spot was drier? We don't, we have no way of knowing that. Hierarchies are based on the material evidence, so if we don't have it how can we infer it? Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence, and all that. That's the argument. Point 2 is probably wrong as land ownership would have likely occurred even among mobile groups. Although this is primarily noted in the early Neolithic where we have settlement patterns that correspond to modern groups of herders and historical accounts (you can dig in to some of Akkermans studies from Syria where he discusses Neolithic and modern nomads, just to see the point e.g. Akkermans & Schwartz (2003) The Archaeology of Syria). So we have material remains corresponding to behavior we see from similar groups today. Essentially nomads will claim an area of land as their own. They will traverse this land and go to different sites at different times for different purposes. They will force others to pay to use their land, or they will remove them through violence (or other means). We also see territorial behavior among primates. Since we know that many sites were seasonal I see no reason to discard the concept of land ownership. It's just that the expectation of land ownership is different today than it would have been. Point 3 hinging on point 1 and 2 may then fall. Whether something is done out of fear would be 100% speculation with no possible way of proving it. Point 4 would probably be correct. That there was a need to protect their land. But this was may true in the Paleolithic too, specially with the more complex hunter-gatherer groups. Protecting resources would possibly be important. Specially in areas with higher population pressure. I can't think of any paper to back this up, but since we know it happened in the Neolithic, we know there was population pressure in some areas, we know there was violence. It would appear reasonable, and an interesting hypothesis to test. Looking at complex hunter-gatherers, subsistence, early farmers, trying to find evidence of violence. I'd read that paper for sure. Maybe there is one? Point 5, sure. It's entirely possible that hunter-gatherers raided early agriculturalists or pastoralists. But would it not be entirely possible that the opposite was true as well? Remember, early farmers relied hugely on hunting and gathering in addition to agriculture. Not to mention cultivators who would spend much (proportionally) of their time sedentary but certainly were also mobile. Complex hunter-gatherers is what I'm saying. As for the moral and religious believes, I refer you to Hawkes' Ladder of Inference. I am a firm believer in that it is near impossible for us to infer moral or religious believes archaeologically. So to me that would be speculation without evidence, or 100% speculation. Why people became sedentary is a big ol' question. You can find a lot of answers to this. The primary theory as it stands is growing population, the right climate, technological advances. This led to agriculture and agriculture worked well. There are several threads on the first page of \/r\/askanthropology where this is discussed. How close your hypothesis is to the truth? Probably not very. Or at least it is much more complex and nuanced than you suggest. Is it possible? Maybe. But you're going to have to find something to support it. A lot of it seems to be speculation based on your own bias and your own narrative (we're all biased). You'd likely have to do a lot of reading to back any of it up. And some of it I don't think you would be able to back up.","human_ref_B":"Having done some research in this direction, I would agree with most of your conclusions, with two exceptions: > Hence, there was not much violence within the bands, but sporadic encounters between two bands could end up violently (out of fear mostly) The best evidence we have points towards *most* violence taking place within bands (Fry & S\u00f6derberg, 2013). This violence, in the data we have, seems to be largely due to conflict over women and to revenge for prior acts of violence. The same is probably true for the motivations underlying (early) intergroup violence - mixed with some territoriality and other concerns. This is in line with limited evidence of massacres - a 'chimpanzee model' type of raiding (e.g. Wrangham & Glowacki, 2012) doesn't produce massacres, but individual victims (and limited gains in deterrence, territory, etc). > After becoming sedentary or semi-sedentary, they would need to protect their land from others, who could use up resources from their territory Kelly (2005) has argued, reasonably convincingly I'd say, for a role of weapons technology in major transitions in the nature and frequency of intergroup violence. > why did people become sedentary? Not an expert on that, but I know there's a vivid debates on this, the benefits of (early) agriculture, etc. **References:** Fry, D. P., & S\u00f6derberg, P. (2013). Lethal aggression in mobile forager bands and implications for the origins of war. Science, 341(6143), 270-273. Kelly, R. C. (2005). The evolution of lethal intergroup violence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(43), 15294-15298. Wrangham, R. W., & Glowacki, L. (2012). Intergroup aggression in chimpanzees and war in nomadic hunter-gatherers. Human Nature, 23(1), 5-29.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":42.0,"score_ratio":1.8571428571} +{"post_id":"6a4bpr","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Why are thoughts about warefare and violence in early hunter-gatherer societies so divided? Some scientists say that H-G (hunter-gatherer) societies were egalitarian in every aspect (no social classes, sexes are equal etc). They often take example of !Kung people. !Kung people also have this kind of life philosophy which amongst other things considers any kind of violence childish. On the other side, some say the truth is totally opposite. They say the academia draws these conslusions influenced by modern-day politics. In their opinion, violence has its roots deep in humans, so the warfare was also common between the h-g bands. Now, they take example of some (or many?) h-g peoples from Papua New Guinea, Africa, and most famous Sentinelese islands people. So, whose side has more correct views? What are the facts (archeological) that support those views, because modern-day h-gs have been under heavy influence by agriculturalists, colonialists, or us from today's world society. So taking them as examples is not so reliable. By googling, I found an example of 10000 years old massacre on Ethiopian platau (I think..). And it is stated that it's the (evidence for) earliest act of \"mass-violence\" yet found. But that's not so long time ago, and around that time, people start to transition to sedentary way of life in some parts of the world. So, all these things and many others I read about h-gs on the internet, make me draw some kind of conclusion: * Early, paleolithic h-gs were very mobile, living in small bands, having no hierachical structure in their society and were pretty egalitarian * This was made possible because of low population density, and their lack of \"land owning\" concept * Hence, there was not much violence within the bands, but sporadic encounters between two bands could end up violently (out of fear mostly) * After becoming sedentary or semi-sedentary, they would need to protect their land from others, who could use up resources from their territory * Also this would enable other hgs to pillage the sedentary ones (even though they are non violent, individal hg communities could have different set of moral and religious believes, among them violent ones) Two qustions remain: how close is this view to the truth and why did people become sedentary?","c_root_id_A":"dhboabc","c_root_id_B":"dhbole2","created_at_utc_A":1494329140,"created_at_utc_B":1494329820,"score_A":2,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I don't think the question about warfare is so much about whether violence exists in all societies (it does), as much as it is about what scale violence needs to reach to be considered warfare. How many people are involved? Was this a chance encounter or was it premeditated? Are we seeing evidence of death, or are most of the victims surviving their wounds? Are the victims solely male, or are women, children, and the elderly also included? What degrees of social complexity are required? Answering any of these questions is a bitch of a task, and good luck getting any large group of researchers to agree on how to quantify or qualify it.","human_ref_B":"The concept of an egalitarian lifestyle is attributed to anthropologists. A significant number of archaeologists do not believe that you can apply the social organization of modern groups to groups 100,000 years ago. Much for the same reasons you mention. Some archaeologist (I have met many but I don't know how widespread this view is) discard ethnoarchaeology as a field completely. If we look at the evidence there is not much which shows violence in the Paleolithic. But we also want to remember that we don't have that many Paleolithic remains. Specially not of the earlier species of hominids. It is extremely likely that a significant part of our view is based on this bias. But sitting around speculating does no one any good either, we have to go with what we have. Here is an article on the Shanidar 3 neanderthal, which shows some signs of potential interpersonal violence. It also discusses, or references, other similar cases. It's worth a look only to give you more to read. On the other hand, there is definite evidence of interpersonal violence (as shown above). We know that other primates show aggression and violence. There is really nothing to indicate that violence did not occur in the Paleolithic. The question is on which scale. Simply by going with population numbers it would appear obvious that violence could never have been on a large scale by post-Neolithic standards. At least not in the sense that we find dozens and dozens of dead littering the place. Though proportionally, if a group has 12 members and 4 are killed in a raid, that's pretty significant numbers for that group. But as I said, we lack the evidence. You also want to consider separating violence and warfare. Warfare suggests the purposeful attack on another group with the idea of making war. Is a simple raid warfare? Is one guy getting pissed off at another guy, rounding up some friends and going to kill that guy, warfare? Or does it have to be more structured? I don't know, I study plants and plants are all about peace and love. Warfare is as much as mindset as it is a result. Imagine if you have a personal vendetta against someone, you grab some friends to teach that dude a lesson. His friends get involved. Multiple people die or get injured. Archaeologically we'd probably infer that as warfare of some type. But it wasn't. So it's difficult to infer these things. My point is that you have to watch the terminology as the terminology matters. It sets your expectations. As for your own conclusions (it's more of a hypothesis really). Point 1 is speculation based on modern groups with significant issues showing this archaeologically. In essence, the argument is that since there were no permanent structures there would be no material evidence showing hierarchy. How do we know that the person who slept in that part of the cave wasn't more important than the other and slept there because that spot was drier? We don't, we have no way of knowing that. Hierarchies are based on the material evidence, so if we don't have it how can we infer it? Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence, and all that. That's the argument. Point 2 is probably wrong as land ownership would have likely occurred even among mobile groups. Although this is primarily noted in the early Neolithic where we have settlement patterns that correspond to modern groups of herders and historical accounts (you can dig in to some of Akkermans studies from Syria where he discusses Neolithic and modern nomads, just to see the point e.g. Akkermans & Schwartz (2003) The Archaeology of Syria). So we have material remains corresponding to behavior we see from similar groups today. Essentially nomads will claim an area of land as their own. They will traverse this land and go to different sites at different times for different purposes. They will force others to pay to use their land, or they will remove them through violence (or other means). We also see territorial behavior among primates. Since we know that many sites were seasonal I see no reason to discard the concept of land ownership. It's just that the expectation of land ownership is different today than it would have been. Point 3 hinging on point 1 and 2 may then fall. Whether something is done out of fear would be 100% speculation with no possible way of proving it. Point 4 would probably be correct. That there was a need to protect their land. But this was may true in the Paleolithic too, specially with the more complex hunter-gatherer groups. Protecting resources would possibly be important. Specially in areas with higher population pressure. I can't think of any paper to back this up, but since we know it happened in the Neolithic, we know there was population pressure in some areas, we know there was violence. It would appear reasonable, and an interesting hypothesis to test. Looking at complex hunter-gatherers, subsistence, early farmers, trying to find evidence of violence. I'd read that paper for sure. Maybe there is one? Point 5, sure. It's entirely possible that hunter-gatherers raided early agriculturalists or pastoralists. But would it not be entirely possible that the opposite was true as well? Remember, early farmers relied hugely on hunting and gathering in addition to agriculture. Not to mention cultivators who would spend much (proportionally) of their time sedentary but certainly were also mobile. Complex hunter-gatherers is what I'm saying. As for the moral and religious believes, I refer you to Hawkes' Ladder of Inference. I am a firm believer in that it is near impossible for us to infer moral or religious believes archaeologically. So to me that would be speculation without evidence, or 100% speculation. Why people became sedentary is a big ol' question. You can find a lot of answers to this. The primary theory as it stands is growing population, the right climate, technological advances. This led to agriculture and agriculture worked well. There are several threads on the first page of \/r\/askanthropology where this is discussed. How close your hypothesis is to the truth? Probably not very. Or at least it is much more complex and nuanced than you suggest. Is it possible? Maybe. But you're going to have to find something to support it. A lot of it seems to be speculation based on your own bias and your own narrative (we're all biased). You'd likely have to do a lot of reading to back any of it up. And some of it I don't think you would be able to back up.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":680.0,"score_ratio":6.5} +{"post_id":"6a4bpr","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Why are thoughts about warefare and violence in early hunter-gatherer societies so divided? Some scientists say that H-G (hunter-gatherer) societies were egalitarian in every aspect (no social classes, sexes are equal etc). They often take example of !Kung people. !Kung people also have this kind of life philosophy which amongst other things considers any kind of violence childish. On the other side, some say the truth is totally opposite. They say the academia draws these conslusions influenced by modern-day politics. In their opinion, violence has its roots deep in humans, so the warfare was also common between the h-g bands. Now, they take example of some (or many?) h-g peoples from Papua New Guinea, Africa, and most famous Sentinelese islands people. So, whose side has more correct views? What are the facts (archeological) that support those views, because modern-day h-gs have been under heavy influence by agriculturalists, colonialists, or us from today's world society. So taking them as examples is not so reliable. By googling, I found an example of 10000 years old massacre on Ethiopian platau (I think..). And it is stated that it's the (evidence for) earliest act of \"mass-violence\" yet found. But that's not so long time ago, and around that time, people start to transition to sedentary way of life in some parts of the world. So, all these things and many others I read about h-gs on the internet, make me draw some kind of conclusion: * Early, paleolithic h-gs were very mobile, living in small bands, having no hierachical structure in their society and were pretty egalitarian * This was made possible because of low population density, and their lack of \"land owning\" concept * Hence, there was not much violence within the bands, but sporadic encounters between two bands could end up violently (out of fear mostly) * After becoming sedentary or semi-sedentary, they would need to protect their land from others, who could use up resources from their territory * Also this would enable other hgs to pillage the sedentary ones (even though they are non violent, individal hg communities could have different set of moral and religious believes, among them violent ones) Two qustions remain: how close is this view to the truth and why did people become sedentary?","c_root_id_A":"dhboabc","c_root_id_B":"dhbokni","created_at_utc_A":1494329140,"created_at_utc_B":1494329778,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I don't think the question about warfare is so much about whether violence exists in all societies (it does), as much as it is about what scale violence needs to reach to be considered warfare. How many people are involved? Was this a chance encounter or was it premeditated? Are we seeing evidence of death, or are most of the victims surviving their wounds? Are the victims solely male, or are women, children, and the elderly also included? What degrees of social complexity are required? Answering any of these questions is a bitch of a task, and good luck getting any large group of researchers to agree on how to quantify or qualify it.","human_ref_B":"Having done some research in this direction, I would agree with most of your conclusions, with two exceptions: > Hence, there was not much violence within the bands, but sporadic encounters between two bands could end up violently (out of fear mostly) The best evidence we have points towards *most* violence taking place within bands (Fry & S\u00f6derberg, 2013). This violence, in the data we have, seems to be largely due to conflict over women and to revenge for prior acts of violence. The same is probably true for the motivations underlying (early) intergroup violence - mixed with some territoriality and other concerns. This is in line with limited evidence of massacres - a 'chimpanzee model' type of raiding (e.g. Wrangham & Glowacki, 2012) doesn't produce massacres, but individual victims (and limited gains in deterrence, territory, etc). > After becoming sedentary or semi-sedentary, they would need to protect their land from others, who could use up resources from their territory Kelly (2005) has argued, reasonably convincingly I'd say, for a role of weapons technology in major transitions in the nature and frequency of intergroup violence. > why did people become sedentary? Not an expert on that, but I know there's a vivid debates on this, the benefits of (early) agriculture, etc. **References:** Fry, D. P., & S\u00f6derberg, P. (2013). Lethal aggression in mobile forager bands and implications for the origins of war. Science, 341(6143), 270-273. Kelly, R. C. (2005). The evolution of lethal intergroup violence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(43), 15294-15298. Wrangham, R. W., & Glowacki, L. (2012). Intergroup aggression in chimpanzees and war in nomadic hunter-gatherers. Human Nature, 23(1), 5-29.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":638.0,"score_ratio":3.5} +{"post_id":"6a4bpr","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Why are thoughts about warefare and violence in early hunter-gatherer societies so divided? Some scientists say that H-G (hunter-gatherer) societies were egalitarian in every aspect (no social classes, sexes are equal etc). They often take example of !Kung people. !Kung people also have this kind of life philosophy which amongst other things considers any kind of violence childish. On the other side, some say the truth is totally opposite. They say the academia draws these conslusions influenced by modern-day politics. In their opinion, violence has its roots deep in humans, so the warfare was also common between the h-g bands. Now, they take example of some (or many?) h-g peoples from Papua New Guinea, Africa, and most famous Sentinelese islands people. So, whose side has more correct views? What are the facts (archeological) that support those views, because modern-day h-gs have been under heavy influence by agriculturalists, colonialists, or us from today's world society. So taking them as examples is not so reliable. By googling, I found an example of 10000 years old massacre on Ethiopian platau (I think..). And it is stated that it's the (evidence for) earliest act of \"mass-violence\" yet found. But that's not so long time ago, and around that time, people start to transition to sedentary way of life in some parts of the world. So, all these things and many others I read about h-gs on the internet, make me draw some kind of conclusion: * Early, paleolithic h-gs were very mobile, living in small bands, having no hierachical structure in their society and were pretty egalitarian * This was made possible because of low population density, and their lack of \"land owning\" concept * Hence, there was not much violence within the bands, but sporadic encounters between two bands could end up violently (out of fear mostly) * After becoming sedentary or semi-sedentary, they would need to protect their land from others, who could use up resources from their territory * Also this would enable other hgs to pillage the sedentary ones (even though they are non violent, individal hg communities could have different set of moral and religious believes, among them violent ones) Two qustions remain: how close is this view to the truth and why did people become sedentary?","c_root_id_A":"dhbvsz2","c_root_id_B":"dhch94o","created_at_utc_A":1494340769,"created_at_utc_B":1494364638,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Lots of the studies projecting H and G from ethnographic data are inherently problematic as most groups practice horticulture or have some form of domestic animals (pigs for example). More importantly, they had been dealing directly or indirectly with colonialism or the \"wave\" effects of colonialism through other groups all can affect behavior. For example, people like S Pinker (who is all kinds of messed up) and Keeley use Yanomano as prime examples but they are both horticulturalists and severely influenced by colonialism and new goods\/markets. There will be a great new book that is IMO a way better treatment coming out soon by N Kim and M Kissel that actually reviews all the evidence. Maybe next year or in time for Christmas this year","human_ref_B":"The major problem is in defining warfare, which will wildly affect your results. As mentioned above, there is a question of defining violence vs. warfare. In some cases, a feud in which two people kill another person is counted as warfare. In others, the researcher has much higher criteria such as requiring the presence of unambiguous defensive structures. Obviously, this can heavily affect results either way. A second issue is time period and context. This is especially important when considering the proximity of HGs to horticultural or agricultural societies. Sometimes figures of HG violence are calculated by including violent deaths from non-HG attacks or invasions. Depending on context and definition, you can get wildly different numbers from the ethnographic record. There is also the difference between present-day, or ethnohistoric accounts of HGs versus the Paleolithic where HG violence would be entirely HG vs. HG and not attributable to agriculturalists, etc. If you look at the paleoarchaeological record, there is no evidence for any sort of battle or warfare (again, unless you include some the extremely liberal definitions of warfare). The first widely accepted evidence of warfare occurs ~13-14,000 years ago at Jebel Sahaba\/Site 117 Prior to this point, there is a lack of mass graves attributed to violent deaths. Where violent deaths are found, it is often only one or two people in an entire burial. The idea of chronic paleolithic warfare simply flatly contradicts the archaeological record. The evidence presented is all circumstantial. This is why you don't find any paleo-archs who support this idea -- proponents are frequently drawn from primatology or archaeologists who work in the Neolithic or later. I will link to two good edited volumes on the pro- and con- side that were published fairly recently. If you look at either of these books, the archaeological and osteological analyses that cover the Paleolithic specifically find no evidence for warfare. tl;dr -- You can't expect any \"correct\" number because the estimates are so heavily dependent upon definitions. Violent deaths in the archaeological record, however, are rare until the Terminal Paleolithic\/Mesolithic. Fry: War, Peace, and Human Nature Allen and Jones, Violence and Warfare Among Hunter-Gatherers","labels":0,"seconds_difference":23869.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} +{"post_id":"6a4bpr","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Why are thoughts about warefare and violence in early hunter-gatherer societies so divided? Some scientists say that H-G (hunter-gatherer) societies were egalitarian in every aspect (no social classes, sexes are equal etc). They often take example of !Kung people. !Kung people also have this kind of life philosophy which amongst other things considers any kind of violence childish. On the other side, some say the truth is totally opposite. They say the academia draws these conslusions influenced by modern-day politics. In their opinion, violence has its roots deep in humans, so the warfare was also common between the h-g bands. Now, they take example of some (or many?) h-g peoples from Papua New Guinea, Africa, and most famous Sentinelese islands people. So, whose side has more correct views? What are the facts (archeological) that support those views, because modern-day h-gs have been under heavy influence by agriculturalists, colonialists, or us from today's world society. So taking them as examples is not so reliable. By googling, I found an example of 10000 years old massacre on Ethiopian platau (I think..). And it is stated that it's the (evidence for) earliest act of \"mass-violence\" yet found. But that's not so long time ago, and around that time, people start to transition to sedentary way of life in some parts of the world. So, all these things and many others I read about h-gs on the internet, make me draw some kind of conclusion: * Early, paleolithic h-gs were very mobile, living in small bands, having no hierachical structure in their society and were pretty egalitarian * This was made possible because of low population density, and their lack of \"land owning\" concept * Hence, there was not much violence within the bands, but sporadic encounters between two bands could end up violently (out of fear mostly) * After becoming sedentary or semi-sedentary, they would need to protect their land from others, who could use up resources from their territory * Also this would enable other hgs to pillage the sedentary ones (even though they are non violent, individal hg communities could have different set of moral and religious believes, among them violent ones) Two qustions remain: how close is this view to the truth and why did people become sedentary?","c_root_id_A":"dhch94o","c_root_id_B":"dhboabc","created_at_utc_A":1494364638,"created_at_utc_B":1494329140,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The major problem is in defining warfare, which will wildly affect your results. As mentioned above, there is a question of defining violence vs. warfare. In some cases, a feud in which two people kill another person is counted as warfare. In others, the researcher has much higher criteria such as requiring the presence of unambiguous defensive structures. Obviously, this can heavily affect results either way. A second issue is time period and context. This is especially important when considering the proximity of HGs to horticultural or agricultural societies. Sometimes figures of HG violence are calculated by including violent deaths from non-HG attacks or invasions. Depending on context and definition, you can get wildly different numbers from the ethnographic record. There is also the difference between present-day, or ethnohistoric accounts of HGs versus the Paleolithic where HG violence would be entirely HG vs. HG and not attributable to agriculturalists, etc. If you look at the paleoarchaeological record, there is no evidence for any sort of battle or warfare (again, unless you include some the extremely liberal definitions of warfare). The first widely accepted evidence of warfare occurs ~13-14,000 years ago at Jebel Sahaba\/Site 117 Prior to this point, there is a lack of mass graves attributed to violent deaths. Where violent deaths are found, it is often only one or two people in an entire burial. The idea of chronic paleolithic warfare simply flatly contradicts the archaeological record. The evidence presented is all circumstantial. This is why you don't find any paleo-archs who support this idea -- proponents are frequently drawn from primatology or archaeologists who work in the Neolithic or later. I will link to two good edited volumes on the pro- and con- side that were published fairly recently. If you look at either of these books, the archaeological and osteological analyses that cover the Paleolithic specifically find no evidence for warfare. tl;dr -- You can't expect any \"correct\" number because the estimates are so heavily dependent upon definitions. Violent deaths in the archaeological record, however, are rare until the Terminal Paleolithic\/Mesolithic. Fry: War, Peace, and Human Nature Allen and Jones, Violence and Warfare Among Hunter-Gatherers","human_ref_B":"I don't think the question about warfare is so much about whether violence exists in all societies (it does), as much as it is about what scale violence needs to reach to be considered warfare. How many people are involved? Was this a chance encounter or was it premeditated? Are we seeing evidence of death, or are most of the victims surviving their wounds? Are the victims solely male, or are women, children, and the elderly also included? What degrees of social complexity are required? Answering any of these questions is a bitch of a task, and good luck getting any large group of researchers to agree on how to quantify or qualify it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":35498.0,"score_ratio":3.5} +{"post_id":"6a4bpr","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Why are thoughts about warefare and violence in early hunter-gatherer societies so divided? Some scientists say that H-G (hunter-gatherer) societies were egalitarian in every aspect (no social classes, sexes are equal etc). They often take example of !Kung people. !Kung people also have this kind of life philosophy which amongst other things considers any kind of violence childish. On the other side, some say the truth is totally opposite. They say the academia draws these conslusions influenced by modern-day politics. In their opinion, violence has its roots deep in humans, so the warfare was also common between the h-g bands. Now, they take example of some (or many?) h-g peoples from Papua New Guinea, Africa, and most famous Sentinelese islands people. So, whose side has more correct views? What are the facts (archeological) that support those views, because modern-day h-gs have been under heavy influence by agriculturalists, colonialists, or us from today's world society. So taking them as examples is not so reliable. By googling, I found an example of 10000 years old massacre on Ethiopian platau (I think..). And it is stated that it's the (evidence for) earliest act of \"mass-violence\" yet found. But that's not so long time ago, and around that time, people start to transition to sedentary way of life in some parts of the world. So, all these things and many others I read about h-gs on the internet, make me draw some kind of conclusion: * Early, paleolithic h-gs were very mobile, living in small bands, having no hierachical structure in their society and were pretty egalitarian * This was made possible because of low population density, and their lack of \"land owning\" concept * Hence, there was not much violence within the bands, but sporadic encounters between two bands could end up violently (out of fear mostly) * After becoming sedentary or semi-sedentary, they would need to protect their land from others, who could use up resources from their territory * Also this would enable other hgs to pillage the sedentary ones (even though they are non violent, individal hg communities could have different set of moral and religious believes, among them violent ones) Two qustions remain: how close is this view to the truth and why did people become sedentary?","c_root_id_A":"dhboabc","c_root_id_B":"dhbvsz2","created_at_utc_A":1494329140,"created_at_utc_B":1494340769,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I don't think the question about warfare is so much about whether violence exists in all societies (it does), as much as it is about what scale violence needs to reach to be considered warfare. How many people are involved? Was this a chance encounter or was it premeditated? Are we seeing evidence of death, or are most of the victims surviving their wounds? Are the victims solely male, or are women, children, and the elderly also included? What degrees of social complexity are required? Answering any of these questions is a bitch of a task, and good luck getting any large group of researchers to agree on how to quantify or qualify it.","human_ref_B":"Lots of the studies projecting H and G from ethnographic data are inherently problematic as most groups practice horticulture or have some form of domestic animals (pigs for example). More importantly, they had been dealing directly or indirectly with colonialism or the \"wave\" effects of colonialism through other groups all can affect behavior. For example, people like S Pinker (who is all kinds of messed up) and Keeley use Yanomano as prime examples but they are both horticulturalists and severely influenced by colonialism and new goods\/markets. There will be a great new book that is IMO a way better treatment coming out soon by N Kim and M Kissel that actually reviews all the evidence. Maybe next year or in time for Christmas this year","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11629.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"cvlh69","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Picking out a new laptop for fieldwork in Cambodia? Hello fellow anthros, I'm a PhD candidate about to start fieldwork in rural Cambodia for a few months. My issue is that I've been surviving my studies using two separate computers: a high-powered gaming laptop (I love my games haha) and a chromebook. When I'm in classes or on-the-go, I opt for the chromebook. Whenever I need to use very specific programmes I opt for the massive-basically-a-portable-desktop. Since chromebooks have limited functionality without internet connection, it was suggested to me that I purchase a new laptop. Nothing too fancy, just something hearty enough to get my work done via Microsoft Office, EndNote, NVivo, etc. I was wondering if anyone has any recommendations for brands and models? I've been doing some light research and I've heard Lenovo Thinkpads are pretty decent, but I wanted to hear other opinions as well. Much thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"ey51prl","c_root_id_B":"ey514po","created_at_utc_A":1566818624,"created_at_utc_B":1566817972,"score_A":13,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I would consider to get a laptop and a tablet. If you only want to record while in the field a voice recorder from olymp might do. Quick data entry can be done with the cheapest android tablets. Transfer notes and entries to the laptop in the evenings. Personally get a Thinkpad refurbished. Cheap and sort of tough.","human_ref_B":"Does it need to be ruggedized for outdoor work?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":652.0,"score_ratio":4.3333333333} +{"post_id":"cvlh69","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Picking out a new laptop for fieldwork in Cambodia? Hello fellow anthros, I'm a PhD candidate about to start fieldwork in rural Cambodia for a few months. My issue is that I've been surviving my studies using two separate computers: a high-powered gaming laptop (I love my games haha) and a chromebook. When I'm in classes or on-the-go, I opt for the chromebook. Whenever I need to use very specific programmes I opt for the massive-basically-a-portable-desktop. Since chromebooks have limited functionality without internet connection, it was suggested to me that I purchase a new laptop. Nothing too fancy, just something hearty enough to get my work done via Microsoft Office, EndNote, NVivo, etc. I was wondering if anyone has any recommendations for brands and models? I've been doing some light research and I've heard Lenovo Thinkpads are pretty decent, but I wanted to hear other opinions as well. Much thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"ey514po","c_root_id_B":"ey5aeyd","created_at_utc_A":1566817972,"created_at_utc_B":1566826576,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Does it need to be ruggedized for outdoor work?","human_ref_B":"Thinkpad","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8604.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} +{"post_id":"nz9m18","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Is there any anthropological or historical evidence of the jewish story about exiting Egypt? The origin of judaism can be traced back to an exit of Egypt some ~2,000 years ago. This exit happened after an enslavery of the jewish people for many years. The story talks about plagues, a sea opening, death of first-borns, and 40 years of the jewish people roaming the Sinai desert. Is there any evidence that this event even occurred and if so, how close is it to the jewish tale?","c_root_id_A":"h1ol65u","c_root_id_B":"h1pg21f","created_at_utc_A":1623633059,"created_at_utc_B":1623654206,"score_A":17,"score_B":79,"human_ref_A":"So, there is evidence that Semitic people entered Egypt about 4000 years ago. For a while, these Semitic people held the thrown (19th Dynasty). This is also the same dynasty with Ramses, who is identified as the pharaoh of Exodus. There is evidence that cities like Jericho were sacked by desert raiders during the same time period. But there is no archaeological evidence for the plagues nor the parting of the Red Sea. To be fair, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you read Egyptian inscriptions, the Egyptians never lost a battle, and they wouldn\u2019t have commemorated losing a battle in a slave revolt. There were certainly both vermin and pandemics in ancient Egypt (as there were throughout the ancient world). There are interesting interpretations where the Israelites crossed a marshy section of the Sinai (which Egyptian chariots could not cross). But I think it is much better interpretation of Exodus that it was a metaphoric battle between Yahweh and the Gods of Egypt, where the sacred symbols of Egypt were made profane and the most sacred institutions (inheritance to the eldest male child) was laid low.","human_ref_B":"There's absolutely no evidence for the Exodus occurring, though this doesn't preclude a small proportion of the Israelite population having come from Egypt. The scholar Richard Elliot Friedman has recently came forward with the idea that the Levites are the only Israelites of Egyptian origin, due to some Levites possessing Egyptian names (such as Moses), among other reasons. If this is the case, the Exodus would be a Levite story that was constructed to explain that they're the same as all the other Israelites. That said, all archaeological evidence points to the Israelites simply being a local Canaanite culture that eventually began to consider themselves distinct after around the 10th century BCE. Ancient Hebrew is essentially the same language as Phoenician, Edomite, Midianite, etc, and all of these people were Canaanites (the Phoenicians, in fact, called \"Phoenicia\" Canaan). There is also a TON of textual evidence that shows the development of the Bible from local Canaanite mythology, and there are hints that other local cultures were developing towards monotheism (or at least henotheism or monolatry) at the same time. One of the best books on this subject is The Origins of Biblical Monotheism by Mark S. Smith.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":21147.0,"score_ratio":4.6470588235} +{"post_id":"gb2hd9","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Are there any cultures which communally raise children? I've also heard that there are tribes in the Philippines which have \"children huts\" that children are sent to in order to be raised so if anyone has any more information about that please let me know.","c_root_id_A":"fp5cd72","c_root_id_B":"fp56l7p","created_at_utc_A":1588324086,"created_at_utc_B":1588318064,"score_A":14,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Well I'm part Pinoy, lived there for part of my youth and have never heard of any tribe doing this (not even pre-colonial wise). That said pinoys do raise their kids communally: your aunt can punish you, your older cousin\/sibling, grandma, really anyone in your family or church or school who is \"older\" age or grade-wise higher than you has the potential to end up either teaching or punishing you at some point. Ditto your parent's close friends and their older (than you) children. Here (America) I can be the teacher \\*AND\\* more academically\/experiencially knowledgeable than the parent in the topic at hand but the parent still can bypass my authority, it's ridiculous! I'd never touch a child, but have gotten flack from parents for a simple 'time out' (sitting a kid in a chair in a corner for x minutes) or asking them to clean chalkboard erasers outside after acting up. Don't get me started on trying to teach Sex or relational educational materials, even music can be controversial. It's crazy making!!! TBH I think most cultures raise children communally to one degree or another, even if it's just socialized education + healthcare, only the US has fully bought into the nuclear family model. Even then it's not that stringent in African-American and Latinx communities where both parents working multiple jobs often forces childrearing responsibilities into extended family.","human_ref_B":"You should check Barbara Bodenhorn \"He used to be my relative: exploring the basis of relatedness among Inupiat of Northern Alaska\", this text focuses on Inupiat tribe and tries to make clear what is family for these people. Children in this tribe are believed to be responsible of their fate","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6022.0,"score_ratio":1.75} +{"post_id":"z8pi1k","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"What is the state of scholarly debate on the issue of restitution of artefacts that were stolen during colonial times? I mean, this topic is a heatedly debated one, but I am interested in gaining a better understanding of it beyond the obvious talking points. What are the major economic, political and philosophical arguments both in favour and against sending historical artefacts back from the institutions in the West that care for them to the countries that they were originally looted from? Are there any museums that have started implementing such a policy? Or is it a major no no from museum curators? If so, why is that, besides the obvious factors relating to economic revenue and cultural prestige?","c_root_id_A":"iyemqab","c_root_id_B":"iyenw2y","created_at_utc_A":1669841114,"created_at_utc_B":1669841563,"score_A":14,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"The main argument that gets deployed on the \"keep the artifacts\" side is that they would be better preserved in their current location, because the origin country has political instability and might at any time decide to use the artifacts - or their destruction - as a political symbol or rallying cry. This is supposedly impossible in the West, I guess because of our deep cultural respect for the project of museum curation.","human_ref_B":"One of my previous undergrad anthro professors has worked with the Pitt Rivers museum to return Blackfoot ceremonial shirts to the Blackfoot people. It\u2019s a great project, and I\u2019d expect most anthropologist to agree with returning items. Some cool things about this particular project: - the shirts are some of the only existing Blackfoot shirts (if not the only ones?) because they\u2019ve been preserved by ending up in the museum. Thus, it\u2019s highly ambivalent that while the museum benefitted from colonialism, they also helped preserve something really important to the Blackfoot people, because all their other shirts were lost due to, well, colonialism. - The shirts are not considered objects by the Blackfoot, but people. How the museum described and handled the shirts didn\u2019t reflect this, and museum curators had to learn from the Blackfoot how to properly respect the shirts. - The Blackfoot people involved in the repatriation wanted to handle the shirts, but museum curators were nervous about this, fearing the shirts would be damaged. As a result, the museum curators trained the Blackfoot people to be curators so they could handle the shirts safely. - Throughout the process, the museum and the Blackfoot people collaborated and negotiated how best to proceed. The shirts eventually visited the Blackfoot homeland and the Blackfoot community was able to visit them and be present with their ancestors in this way, which was really meaningful for people. You can look up the project, I\u2019m sure I left out some details. Source: university lessons in social anthropology taught by Prof Alison Brown who was working on the project.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":449.0,"score_ratio":3.3571428571} +{"post_id":"z8pi1k","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"What is the state of scholarly debate on the issue of restitution of artefacts that were stolen during colonial times? I mean, this topic is a heatedly debated one, but I am interested in gaining a better understanding of it beyond the obvious talking points. What are the major economic, political and philosophical arguments both in favour and against sending historical artefacts back from the institutions in the West that care for them to the countries that they were originally looted from? Are there any museums that have started implementing such a policy? Or is it a major no no from museum curators? If so, why is that, besides the obvious factors relating to economic revenue and cultural prestige?","c_root_id_A":"iyenw2y","c_root_id_B":"iye6xoe","created_at_utc_A":1669841563,"created_at_utc_B":1669835015,"score_A":47,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"One of my previous undergrad anthro professors has worked with the Pitt Rivers museum to return Blackfoot ceremonial shirts to the Blackfoot people. It\u2019s a great project, and I\u2019d expect most anthropologist to agree with returning items. Some cool things about this particular project: - the shirts are some of the only existing Blackfoot shirts (if not the only ones?) because they\u2019ve been preserved by ending up in the museum. Thus, it\u2019s highly ambivalent that while the museum benefitted from colonialism, they also helped preserve something really important to the Blackfoot people, because all their other shirts were lost due to, well, colonialism. - The shirts are not considered objects by the Blackfoot, but people. How the museum described and handled the shirts didn\u2019t reflect this, and museum curators had to learn from the Blackfoot how to properly respect the shirts. - The Blackfoot people involved in the repatriation wanted to handle the shirts, but museum curators were nervous about this, fearing the shirts would be damaged. As a result, the museum curators trained the Blackfoot people to be curators so they could handle the shirts safely. - Throughout the process, the museum and the Blackfoot people collaborated and negotiated how best to proceed. The shirts eventually visited the Blackfoot homeland and the Blackfoot community was able to visit them and be present with their ancestors in this way, which was really meaningful for people. You can look up the project, I\u2019m sure I left out some details. Source: university lessons in social anthropology taught by Prof Alison Brown who was working on the project.","human_ref_B":"Hi there! Happy to share some reading and resources on this topic as it relates to the return of African cultural heritage: Open Restitution Africa is a great place to start to get an overview from key voices on the continent of Africa, including video interviews with thinkers, leaders, curators, activists and others. The International Inventories Programme is another unique project visualizing the movement of objects outside of Kenya (and hopefully returning there again soon). And #BringBackNgonnso is an active campaign for restitution of the statue of Ngonnso to Cameroon. Souleymane Bachir Diagne, Felwine Sarr and Achille Mbembe have all written extensively on the philosophical imperative for restitution for years. You might look into some of their work. There are quite a few \"radical curators\" and scholars working on these issues and restitutions have most definitely been made to governments, museums and communities, many high profile returns from museums in Scotland, Germany, the US and more have taken place just in the past year or so. With increasing public pressure and visibility into collections, this is becoming increasingly common and so long overdue as we seek to acknowledge the harm that was done, expand access to information and inventories, listen with humility and seek to continually improve this process.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6548.0,"score_ratio":3.9166666667} +{"post_id":"z8pi1k","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"What is the state of scholarly debate on the issue of restitution of artefacts that were stolen during colonial times? I mean, this topic is a heatedly debated one, but I am interested in gaining a better understanding of it beyond the obvious talking points. What are the major economic, political and philosophical arguments both in favour and against sending historical artefacts back from the institutions in the West that care for them to the countries that they were originally looted from? Are there any museums that have started implementing such a policy? Or is it a major no no from museum curators? If so, why is that, besides the obvious factors relating to economic revenue and cultural prestige?","c_root_id_A":"iyemqab","c_root_id_B":"iye6xoe","created_at_utc_A":1669841114,"created_at_utc_B":1669835015,"score_A":14,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"The main argument that gets deployed on the \"keep the artifacts\" side is that they would be better preserved in their current location, because the origin country has political instability and might at any time decide to use the artifacts - or their destruction - as a political symbol or rallying cry. This is supposedly impossible in the West, I guess because of our deep cultural respect for the project of museum curation.","human_ref_B":"Hi there! Happy to share some reading and resources on this topic as it relates to the return of African cultural heritage: Open Restitution Africa is a great place to start to get an overview from key voices on the continent of Africa, including video interviews with thinkers, leaders, curators, activists and others. The International Inventories Programme is another unique project visualizing the movement of objects outside of Kenya (and hopefully returning there again soon). And #BringBackNgonnso is an active campaign for restitution of the statue of Ngonnso to Cameroon. Souleymane Bachir Diagne, Felwine Sarr and Achille Mbembe have all written extensively on the philosophical imperative for restitution for years. You might look into some of their work. There are quite a few \"radical curators\" and scholars working on these issues and restitutions have most definitely been made to governments, museums and communities, many high profile returns from museums in Scotland, Germany, the US and more have taken place just in the past year or so. With increasing public pressure and visibility into collections, this is becoming increasingly common and so long overdue as we seek to acknowledge the harm that was done, expand access to information and inventories, listen with humility and seek to continually improve this process.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6099.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} +{"post_id":"y0fv1z","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"How well understood is the Homo sapiens\/neanderthal split at the moment? My initial understanding was that the split between modern humans and neanderthals would have went something like this: Homo sapiens evolutionary path: Australopithecines -> proto-Homo erectus\/Homo habilis\/rudolfensis -> Homo ergaster\/erectus -> (African) Homo rhodesiensis\/heidelbergensis -> Homo sapiens Neanderthal evolutionary path: Australopithecines -> proto-Homo erectus\/Homo habilis\/rudolfensis -> Homo ergaster\/erectus -> (European) Homo rhodesiensis\/heidelbergensis -> Homo neanderthalensis Basically, Homo heidelbergensis and Homo rhodesiensis are the same thing, with Homo rhodesiensis migrating into Europe and eventually evolving into neanderthals. Homo rhodesiensis that remained in Africa would eventually evolve into Homo sapiens. But, I\u2019m now aware that: 1. At least some European specimens (i.e., the Sima de los Huesos remains) that were initially designated to Homo heidelbergensis based on morphological features were recently found to be genetically neanderthal 2. There has been ongoing debate about whether or not specimens designated to Homo rhodesiensis are of the same lineage as specimens designated to Homo heidelbergensis, with there now being a new classification for Homo rhodesiensis, \u201cHomo bodoensis\u201d My question is: is it now generally assumed that Homo heidelbergensis had a much earlier split from Homo rhodesiensis, with Homo heidelbergensis possibly evolving from European Homo erectus, or is there another explanation for the recent genetic discoveries?","c_root_id_A":"irsw3j4","c_root_id_B":"irsumr9","created_at_utc_A":1665431941,"created_at_utc_B":1665431343,"score_A":11,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Hello lightvvv350, Welcome and thanks for commenting. Hopefully I can help answer your questions (or at least clarify) > At least some European specimens (i.e., the Sima de los Huesos remains) that were initially designated Homo heidelbergensis based on morphological features were recently found to be genetically identical to Neanderthals. I think you might be referring to the work reported in Meyer et al. (2016)? The researchers analysed the ancient nuclear DNA remains from two separate Sima de los Huesos (hereafter \u201cSH\u201d) individuals and compared them with those of modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans. They found these two SH individuals were more closely related to Neanderthals than either group was to Denisovans and thus, likely post-date the Neanderthal-Denisovan split. Strictly speaking, the authors leave open the possibility that the remains were not themselves Neanderthals per se, but close relatives on the Neanderthal branch. Either way, this naturally has implications for the Modern Human-Neanderthal\/Denisovan split which must have occurred even further back in time and therefore rules out most H. heidelbergensis specimens (including all Arago and Petralona materials) as candidates for the last common ancestor of modern humans and Neanderthals. > There has been an ongoing debate about whether or not specimens designated to Homo rhodesiensis are of the same lineage as specimens designated H. heidelbergensis, with there now being a new classification for H. rhodesiensis as H. bodoensis. There has been an ongoing debate amongst lumpers and splitters over just how many species there are in just about every taxonomic group I\u2019m afraid. Depending on which palaeontologist you talk to H. rhodesiensis may be regarded either as its own species or African H. heidelbergensis. In fact, to some palaeontologists, all of the species you\u2019ve listed above may even be lumped together further under the banners of either H. erectus or H. sapiens. > My question is: is it generally assumed that H. heidelbergensis had a much earlier split from H. rhodesiensis, with H. heidelbergensis possibly evolving from European H. erectus, or is there another explanation for these recent discoveries? Yes, there is another explanation: Human evolution was a complex process. Currently, it\u2019s not even clear whether H. rhodesiensis was even a distinct species or not or whether it just represented an African population of H. heidelbergensis. In which case, the most likely model has African H. heidelbergensis (H. rhodesiensis) evolving from a population of African H. erectus approximately 1 million to 1.2 million years ago. A population of African H. heidelbergensis would then give rise to the European population sometime prior to around 640,000 years ago based on the earliest known European fossil specimens (Mounier et al. 2009), though others have suggested 875,000 years ago based on some Ethiopian specimens which seem to represent a transitional morph between African H. erectus and H. heidelbergensis (Profico et al. 2016). Best wishes :) References Meyer, M., Arsuaga, J. L., De Filippo, C., Nagel, S., Aximu-Petri, A., Nickel, B., ... & P\u00e4\u00e4bo, S. (2016). Nuclear DNA sequences from the Middle Pleistocene Sima de los Huesos hominins. Nature, 531(7595), 504-507. Mounier, A.; Marchal, F.; Condemi, S. (2009). \"Is Homo heidelbergensis a distinct species? New insight on the Mauer mandible\". Journal of Human Evolution. 56 (3): 219\u2013246. Profico, A.; di Vincenzo, F.; et\u00a0al. (2016). \"Filling the gap. Human cranial remains from Gombore II (Melka Kunture, Ethiopia; ca. 850 ka) and the origin of Homo heidelbergensis\". Journal of Anthropological Sciences. 94 (94): 1\u201324","human_ref_B":"We have modern genetic evidence now that there was enough interbreeding between neanderthals and denisovans and homo sapiens to leave their DNA in our own. This challenges the definition of \"species\" as we might typically define a species, because typically a species is defined as a population or group of populations of individual organisms that are capable of interbreeding. This would make neanderthals and denisovans more accurately described as subtypes of isolated archaic human. There's some academic discussion about heidelbergensis evolving in Africa or in Europe and the science isn't 100% settled on that, but we do know that neanderthals populated parts of Europe. Africa and Europe were one landmass during the last glacial maximum due to a much lower sea level. Denisovans meanwhile populated parts of Asia, and homo sapiens from africa rapidly expanded to all these places due to their superior technology and better cooperation, coming to fairly rapidly wipe out other archaic humans shortly after coming into contact with them, but interbreeding enough to leave a lasting genetic legacy. It might astound an alien to learn that we can cross a chihuaha with a bulldog and that those are the same species, despite their vastly different temperaments and behaviors and intelligence levels and genetic profiles. But they are in fact still the same species. We aren't exceptional as a species - an isolated inbred group of humans over thousands of years could grow to be as different from us as very divergent breeds of dogs are from each other yet still capable of interbreeding with us. That's basically what happened, but because they could interbreed with us, they were arguably humans. Just screwed up inbred mutant cave humans. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homo\\_heidelbergensis https:\/\/www.livinganthropologically.com\/biological-anthropology\/denisovans-neandertals-human-races\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":598.0,"score_ratio":2.75} +{"post_id":"3bf23x","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Can afflictions such as ADHD, depression, certain eating disorders be considered culture-bound syndromes, occurring in mostly westernised cultures ? If not, why not? https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Culture-bound_syndrome","c_root_id_A":"csltjka","c_root_id_B":"cslplxg","created_at_utc_A":1435531792,"created_at_utc_B":1435524346,"score_A":39,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"Disassociate identity disorder (multiple personality disorder) is a completely culture bound syndrome to the United States with isolated incidents emerging in the UK over the past 5-10 years. It is thought that the representation on American television caused a spike in diagnosis and mimicking behavior.","human_ref_B":"You may find this interesting. Women And Hysteria In The History Of Mental Health Depression as a symptom is relatively new, previously it has presented as \"Hysteria\", the fainting spells and such you see in the 50s movies, this was the cultural way of displaying those types of feelings. Saw a documentary on this not long ago, one case-study was an isolated tribe where the women display this type of thing in a unique way, hitting their head or something, can't remember the details but was showing how the behaviours were cultural.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7446.0,"score_ratio":1.6956521739} +{"post_id":"3bf23x","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Can afflictions such as ADHD, depression, certain eating disorders be considered culture-bound syndromes, occurring in mostly westernised cultures ? If not, why not? https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Culture-bound_syndrome","c_root_id_A":"csltjka","c_root_id_B":"cslpz8z","created_at_utc_A":1435531792,"created_at_utc_B":1435525073,"score_A":39,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Disassociate identity disorder (multiple personality disorder) is a completely culture bound syndrome to the United States with isolated incidents emerging in the UK over the past 5-10 years. It is thought that the representation on American television caused a spike in diagnosis and mimicking behavior.","human_ref_B":"Based on the wiki definition, no, because there are recognized biochemical changes. ADD and depression are not non-physical or imagined illnesses, you are talking about abnormal brain chemistry.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6719.0,"score_ratio":5.5714285714} +{"post_id":"3bf23x","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Can afflictions such as ADHD, depression, certain eating disorders be considered culture-bound syndromes, occurring in mostly westernised cultures ? If not, why not? https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Culture-bound_syndrome","c_root_id_A":"cslyxpz","c_root_id_B":"cslplxg","created_at_utc_A":1435542900,"created_at_utc_B":1435524346,"score_A":31,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"Depression, like schizophrenia, is found in cultures all across the world. There are different names, and the depression-driven behaviors may manifest differently, but it is most definitely *not* found in just western cultures. I don't know about indigenous tribes in the Amazon, and sure as hell don't know about the Sentinelese, but depression is found basically everywhere. Eating disorders are not culture bound either, if you look at it from the current psychological perspective, that it is an extreme form of OCD. OCD takes many forms, and those forms are determined by the culture in which the individual lives, but like depression, schizophrenia, and anxiety, OCD is not restricted to Westernized or developed nations. I can't speak for ADHD, that was not my treatment are when I practiced, but I doubt it's culture bound either - it just manifests differently. Source: I'm an anthropologist who went rogue and became a psychotherapist.","human_ref_B":"You may find this interesting. Women And Hysteria In The History Of Mental Health Depression as a symptom is relatively new, previously it has presented as \"Hysteria\", the fainting spells and such you see in the 50s movies, this was the cultural way of displaying those types of feelings. Saw a documentary on this not long ago, one case-study was an isolated tribe where the women display this type of thing in a unique way, hitting their head or something, can't remember the details but was showing how the behaviours were cultural.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18554.0,"score_ratio":1.347826087} +{"post_id":"3bf23x","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Can afflictions such as ADHD, depression, certain eating disorders be considered culture-bound syndromes, occurring in mostly westernised cultures ? If not, why not? https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Culture-bound_syndrome","c_root_id_A":"cslyxpz","c_root_id_B":"cslpz8z","created_at_utc_A":1435542900,"created_at_utc_B":1435525073,"score_A":31,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Depression, like schizophrenia, is found in cultures all across the world. There are different names, and the depression-driven behaviors may manifest differently, but it is most definitely *not* found in just western cultures. I don't know about indigenous tribes in the Amazon, and sure as hell don't know about the Sentinelese, but depression is found basically everywhere. Eating disorders are not culture bound either, if you look at it from the current psychological perspective, that it is an extreme form of OCD. OCD takes many forms, and those forms are determined by the culture in which the individual lives, but like depression, schizophrenia, and anxiety, OCD is not restricted to Westernized or developed nations. I can't speak for ADHD, that was not my treatment are when I practiced, but I doubt it's culture bound either - it just manifests differently. Source: I'm an anthropologist who went rogue and became a psychotherapist.","human_ref_B":"Based on the wiki definition, no, because there are recognized biochemical changes. ADD and depression are not non-physical or imagined illnesses, you are talking about abnormal brain chemistry.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17827.0,"score_ratio":4.4285714286} +{"post_id":"3bf23x","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Can afflictions such as ADHD, depression, certain eating disorders be considered culture-bound syndromes, occurring in mostly westernised cultures ? If not, why not? https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Culture-bound_syndrome","c_root_id_A":"cslyemz","c_root_id_B":"cslyxpz","created_at_utc_A":1435541808,"created_at_utc_B":1435542900,"score_A":6,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"I would like to add on to the question by wondering about dyslexia. It seems as though it would only occur in cultures that use writing in some way, but I don't know enough about it to verify whether this is the case.","human_ref_B":"Depression, like schizophrenia, is found in cultures all across the world. There are different names, and the depression-driven behaviors may manifest differently, but it is most definitely *not* found in just western cultures. I don't know about indigenous tribes in the Amazon, and sure as hell don't know about the Sentinelese, but depression is found basically everywhere. Eating disorders are not culture bound either, if you look at it from the current psychological perspective, that it is an extreme form of OCD. OCD takes many forms, and those forms are determined by the culture in which the individual lives, but like depression, schizophrenia, and anxiety, OCD is not restricted to Westernized or developed nations. I can't speak for ADHD, that was not my treatment are when I practiced, but I doubt it's culture bound either - it just manifests differently. Source: I'm an anthropologist who went rogue and became a psychotherapist.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1092.0,"score_ratio":5.1666666667} +{"post_id":"8urubk","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What is the difference between a culture and a civilization? When should I use one or another? I seen both used often interchangeable. According to my observations, \"civilization\" reserved almost exclusively to Eurasia and North Africa. In Americas, \"civilization\" warranted only to most spectacular examples as Aztec and Inca. In Sub-Sahara, the only polity consistently called \"civilized\" is Ethiopia. It is never used to describe non-sedentary polities.","c_root_id_A":"e1ixdc3","c_root_id_B":"e1is392","created_at_utc_A":1530313383,"created_at_utc_B":1530308011,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">According to my observations, \"civilization\" reserved almost exclusively to Eurasia and North Africa. In Americas, \"civilization\" warranted only to most spectacular examples as Aztec and Inca. In Sub-Sahara, the only polity consistently called \"civilized\" is Ethiopia. It is never used to describe non-sedentary polities. With respect to Africa, I'm just going to quote Chris Ehret on the matter, from the intro to his book _the Civilizations of Africa_ > Any book which, like this one, includes \"civilization\" in its title must confront the highly problematic nature of this term. Unfortunately, the most common applications of \"civilization\" both by historians and by the public are fraught by value judgements. Societies and peoples only too commonly are described as civilized or uncivilized, or as \"having civilization\" or lacking it. To speak thus is to rely on mystification in place of substantive description and analysis. >What does it mean to be \"uncivilized\"? Ifi it means, as its common colloquial use implies, to behave in a violent, disorderly manner and act without the restraint of law or custom, then Europeans of the twentieth century, with their recurrent descents into genocide and pogroms, and those southern white folk of the early decades of the century who lynched black folk are among the most uncivilized people of history. But it is foolishness to distinguish societies as a whole by such a criterion. All societies have complex laws and rules of proper social behavior, whether written or oral, to which people are expected to conform, and a range of sanctions to be imposed on those who break the laws and rules. In that sense, all societies throughout humanity's history have been \"civilized.\" Only during periods of breakdown of the social or political order does so-called \"uncivilized\" behavior predominate over \"civilized,\" and any society anywhere in time and place can potentially face such a breakdown. >Historians of ancient times fall into a related interpretive trap. They classify certain societies as civilizations and the rest as something other than civilizations. So general and uncritical is the acceptance of this practice by both the readers and writers of history that it may astonish the reader to learn just how insubstantial and inadequately grounded such a conceptualization is. >What are we actually dealing with when we apply the appellation of civilization to a particular society? In general terms, the societies that have been called civilizations have stratified social systems and a significant degree of political elaboration and centralization, construct large buildings, tend to have towns or cities, and possibly but not necessarily have writing. The first appearances of societies of this kind were undeniably important developments in the overall course of history. The centralization of political power and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, as reflected in the fact of social stratification, allowed the wealthy to subsidize for the fist time new kinds of specialized production. The ruling class in a \"civilization\" required servants, and it employed skilled artisans to fashion the outward material trappings of ruling status. The rulers could mobilize large labor forces for public works, and from the tribute they exacted from the common people they could support the efforts of full time artists to produce \"great\" or at least monumental art. The ability of the wealthy to buy exotic goods encouraged the appearance of long-distance trade; the ability of the powerful to call up large military forces brought a new scale of warfare into being. Human beings ever after have had to deal with the repercussions of these two developments. >But when we take the shortcut of using the term \"civilization\" for such a society, we put at hazard our ability to gain a concrete grasp of what moved and shaped life in those earlier times. Whether we mean to or not, we convey to others the elements of mystification and uncritical approbation that inhere in the word. Only when we depict people and their lives and work in specific ways using specifically applicable terms can we get beyond exalting, intentionally or not, what was, after all, no more than the special power of certain persons in certain societies to mobilize labor and glorify themselves. If these were societies with an urban component, let us describe them then as early, partially urbanized societies. If they possessed marked social and political stratification, then we should say as much in clear and specific fashion. >Relying on the term \"civilization\" unbalances our understanding of history as well. In most textbooks of ancient history and world history, what topics get the principal attention? the short answer is \"civilizations.\" Those societies designated as \"civilizations\" are treated as if they were the centers of almost all innovation and of all the really important developments. They tend to be viewed, fallaciously, as culturally more complicated, artistically more accomplished, and technologically more advanced than \"noncivilizations.\" The fact that many key technological innovations in human history began, and much great art was produced, in other, less stratified, nonurban societies is glossed over. The fact that every early \"civilization\" took shape in a regional historical context of many interacting societies, large and small, is neglected, and so we construct a lopsided understanding of the history of the wider region in which that \"civilization\" took shape. We miss the many human accomplishments of lasting importance that originated in other places entirely. How peculiar, anyway, that today, in an era of democratic thinking given to the idea of democracy for all people, we should continue in our history books to esteem so highly societies in which wealth and political power were monopolized by the few. > There is, however, another use of the term \"civilization\" that, if applied carefully, does have historical validity, and **this is the meaning we wil adopt in this work.** What is this other meaning? Consider the phrases \"Western civilization\" and \"Islamic civilization.\" In this context, \"civilization\" refers to a grouping of societies and their individual cultures, conjoined by their sharing of deep common historical roots. Despite many individual cultural differences, the societies in question share a range of fundamental soical and cultural ideas and often a variety of less fundamental expectations and customs. These ideas and practices form a common historical heritage, stemming either from many centuries of close cultural interaction and the mutual diffusion of ideas or from a still more ancient common historical descent of the societies involved from some much earlier society or grouping of related societies. In our exploration of African history, we will encounter several key civilizations, far-flung groupings of culturally and historically linked societies, such as the Niger-Congo, Afrasian, Sudanic, and Khoesan civilizations. At times we will also use an alternative terminology, describing these historically linked culture groupings as cultural or historical \"traditions\" So, in this quote Ehret is making an argument pretty similar to what \/u\/drpeppero is saying. That is, recognizing ancient Ethiopia or Inca or Aztec polities as \"civilizations\" draws implicit, approving comparisons to ancient and modern Western polities. That can be enormously problematic, leading to a prejudice that the study of these \"uncivilized\" areas in Africa and other places is \"merely the study of the unrewarding gyrations of barbarous tribes in picturesque but irrelevant corners of the globe\" in the words of Hugh Trevor-Roper. Now, Africanist historians and anthropologists *could* expend energy to argue and popularize the notion that the Middle Niger (Ghana empire, Mali, Songhay, Takrur, et al) or Swahili coast, or Kongo, Loango, or kingdoms of coastal West Africa like Edo, Oyo, Ashanti empire, Dahomey all satisfy the criteria of stratification, and dense settlements to deserve the label of \"civilizations\". But, by and large, Africanists don't bother doing this because they don't want to fall into what Ann Stahl calls the \"trevor-roper trap\". Which is, by protesting that ancient Africa _had_ civilizations, and innovation, you are accepting this premise of dynamic civilizations and static \"uncivilized\" societies, and accepting the value judgements. Instead, my sense is that Africanist scholars try to follow Ehret's admonishment to be as clear and descriptive in their characterization of the aspects of the societies they study, without reverting to mystifying terms like \"civilized\" or \"advanced\" or what have you. Edit- Also, if you want to read some more, this AskHistorians thread where we discuss the concept of \"cradles of civilization\" is pretty good. I'd recommend paying particular attention to \/u\/commodoreCoCo's comment and the linked discussion between him and \/u\/Qhapacocha about post-processual archaeology in the Andean context.","human_ref_B":"Rule of thumb, never use civilization. By using it you imply some societies are \"uncivilized\" which has a bunch of colonial baggage with it. Laura Nadar also has a very fantastic piece about why we need to move past the word \"culture\", in that it's a crude catch all used to fence in communities that can be very disparate. That said, for ease I sometimes use it. Sociological group, community etc are good alternatives That said, Civilized and Cultured are often used as interchangeable as a value judgement upon a society that is hierarchical. This is mainly because these societies are seen as closer to western and thus \"better\". This is especially prevelant in South America where \"civilized\" states like the Incans were seen as noble whereas hunter gatherer groups in the Amazon like the Carib were vilified. These stereotypes continue to shape the perceptions and problems by indigenous peoples in these regions to this very day.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5372.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} +{"post_id":"u43zlk","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Anthropology guidance: how long did it take to get your PhD? I\u2019ve been trying to figure out what it takes to be an anthropologist. I want to get my Phd in anthropology but don\u2019t know how long it normally takes to get the degree and what should I expect. I\u2019m in my early 20s and currently working on my bachelors degree and need a little more guidance. So if there are any anthropologist with a phd that can help me please let me know what age(doesn\u2019t have to be specific) did you get your PhD and what was your journey\/experience like?","c_root_id_A":"i4u3mkk","c_root_id_B":"i4u64tu","created_at_utc_A":1650033075,"created_at_utc_B":1650034140,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Differs a lot by country. Mine was 8 years which was pretty typical in my program (they awarded a Master\u2019s along the way). That\u2019s the US. In the UK they expect you to finish in 3 years, but 4 is more typical. Main difference is you start off taking classes in most American programs, but don\u2019t in the UK.","human_ref_B":"I went back to undergrad in my late 20s (finished at 29), completed my MA when I was 31, had a gap year between end of MA and start of PhD where I taught and applied to PhD programs. Started PhD when I was 33 and finished at 39. That time included a year where I did nothing but teach and write grant applications to fund my fieldwork, a year of fieldwork, and a year writing my dissertation. I agree with other comment that to finish quickly you have to go in with a solid (but flexible) idea of what you want to do. You have to be strategic from the start about what you're doing during coursework--you can't just sort of take whatever you feel like taking because it sounds interesting and expect to finish quickly. Only take courses that are relevant to your work\/topic, achieve your program requirements, and will enable you to simultaneously work towards other program goals. For example, I used all of my coursework time to generate material (like annotated bibliographies) to prepare for comprehensive exams, write draft grant applications, and even to write publications (I turned two course papers into publications during PhD program). If you're doing anything with your coursework that isn't directed toward these kinds of goals, you're wasting time and money.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1065.0,"score_ratio":2.0} +{"post_id":"twtbkk","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"I have trouble sorting out the difference between various hominins -- what they could do, when they could do it. What is an easy way to memorize? What is the best resource for distinguishing the various lines leading up to homo sapiens and the relevant precursors? I always get confused.","c_root_id_A":"i3hzy2r","c_root_id_B":"i3hpd20","created_at_utc_A":1649171720,"created_at_utc_B":1649167521,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Putting them into smaller groups and then memorizing those smaller groups might be helpful. For instance I think of the pre-australopithicines, then the Gracile and robust (or Paranthropus) species, then the various Homo species. I find breaking them up into groups like this helps me sort them in my head. Sometimes I do different types of groups, like thinking about which Hominins are from East vs. South Africa. Flash cards could also be helpful. Spend time throughout your day working on, five minutes here and five minutes there.","human_ref_B":"You could look for a recent Intro to Physical Anthropology textbook. That would give you the basic overview you are looking for and will also contain a good bibliography for further research.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4199.0,"score_ratio":1.2} +{"post_id":"7toega","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Why do men wear their hair short and women long? Why not the other way round? Thanks","c_root_id_A":"dte75ds","c_root_id_B":"dte59rg","created_at_utc_A":1517194184,"created_at_utc_B":1517191971,"score_A":61,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Thats a pretty broad generalization, hairstyles are incredibly culturally dependent and will vary from status to role pretty continually. And if my memories of middle school and early highschool tell me anything not a really accurate one for the guys part (dark days my friends... dark dark days). There are quite a few cultures where men wear long hair, but in the 20th century in particular it tends to deal in part with military tradition. When you enter the services you get your hair cut off for three reasons, first is to reduce chance for lice to spread, two it's one less place for an enemy to grab onto, third its part of the process to break down the soldiers self image and rebuild it in the military image. The sort of short hair cuts like this got popularized among male culture because SO many men served in those wars and became associated with both professionalism and preparedness for action (as in that time period the image of the military male was sexualized). Post WWI and WWII you saw this sort of military\/ post military haircut became common place, but at the same time in counter culture the opposite became popular. (Think of glam rockers in the 70s and 80s, and the hippy movement. Men in those cultures and subcultures tended to wear long hair as a form of rebellion). But for a large part a practical reason is that its really easy to upkeep. As for womens hair the answer is actually a bit less complex IMHO, longer hair takes a shit ton of work to maintain, thus historically it has been seen as a sign of wealth. So women tended to wear their hair longer to show they had the time and money to be able to afford to upkeep their long hair. There may be more reasons of course but in my experience that tends to explain the situations in cultures where you had really long hair being valued as a sign of beauty.","human_ref_B":"Its quite the generalisation and there will be numerous exceptions but overall I get what you mean. The answer lies in the fact that in most\/many cultures there is an expectation that women need to be beautiful and men need to be strong and rugged. Looking fancy is not 'needed' for men an so a nice practical haircut is sufficient. Women are socially pressured to look fancy and so having nice fancy hair significantly adds to that ability. There IS a reason for example why many older women, as their hair gets thinner and their looks and husbands fade, choose to have a more sensible cut.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2213.0,"score_ratio":15.25} +{"post_id":"7toega","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Why do men wear their hair short and women long? Why not the other way round? Thanks","c_root_id_A":"dtetljd","c_root_id_B":"dte59rg","created_at_utc_A":1517235517,"created_at_utc_B":1517191971,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"In Western culture it can attributed to the aesthetic preferences of the Christian apostle Paul in the first century CE. > _Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?_ > _But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering._ > - 1 Corinthians 11:14-15","human_ref_B":"Its quite the generalisation and there will be numerous exceptions but overall I get what you mean. The answer lies in the fact that in most\/many cultures there is an expectation that women need to be beautiful and men need to be strong and rugged. Looking fancy is not 'needed' for men an so a nice practical haircut is sufficient. Women are socially pressured to look fancy and so having nice fancy hair significantly adds to that ability. There IS a reason for example why many older women, as their hair gets thinner and their looks and husbands fade, choose to have a more sensible cut.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":43546.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"7toega","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Why do men wear their hair short and women long? Why not the other way round? Thanks","c_root_id_A":"dtetljd","c_root_id_B":"dteksfd","created_at_utc_A":1517235517,"created_at_utc_B":1517216964,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In Western culture it can attributed to the aesthetic preferences of the Christian apostle Paul in the first century CE. > _Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?_ > _But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering._ > - 1 Corinthians 11:14-15","human_ref_B":"Gonna Hijack your post by asking since men are more propitious to baldness than women, wouldn\u2019t that affect the overall fashion trends? I\u2019ve seen bald guys with long hair but generally they tend to trim or shave if they\u2019re really bald.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18553.0,"score_ratio":3.0} +{"post_id":"7toega","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Why do men wear their hair short and women long? Why not the other way round? Thanks","c_root_id_A":"dteksfd","c_root_id_B":"dtfgeqj","created_at_utc_A":1517216964,"created_at_utc_B":1517258000,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Gonna Hijack your post by asking since men are more propitious to baldness than women, wouldn\u2019t that affect the overall fashion trends? I\u2019ve seen bald guys with long hair but generally they tend to trim or shave if they\u2019re really bald.","human_ref_B":"This is \"AskAnthropology,\" not \"AskWesternersWhatTheyThink.\" Across human history and human cultures, there are men and women with hair lengths across the full spectrum. And people have kept their hair long or short for all manner of reasons, deriving from historical tradition to personal preference to practicality to all manner of other things in between. Men today in many cultures wear their hair long, and many women wear their hair short. And there is no reason to believe it has ever been any different. So can you please clarify: **Which culture are you referring to, and in what part of the world? And which time period? And how old are the people you're talking about?** I'm not asking these things to be a dick, but to remind you-- and all the other people posting here who seem to be generalizing to Western society without even bothering to ask.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":41036.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"4raxdd","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Are there any interesting artistic depictions of caucasian people from other cultures? I've always noticed that in earlier depictions, other races are illustrated weirdly by white people, for example blacks and asians. I wondered if the reverse held true, for instance if native americans\/mesoamericans made any art about settlers, or if dutch traders appear in old japanese paintings. I hope this isn't kind of an ignorant question or something, any info would be awesome.","c_root_id_A":"d4zwewe","c_root_id_B":"d4zrjov","created_at_utc_A":1467721956,"created_at_utc_B":1467705740,"score_A":30,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"Maybe like this http:\/\/www.smh.com.au\/news\/national\/rock-art-redraws-our-history\/2008\/09\/19\/1221331206960.html or maybe this http:\/\/resobscura.blogspot.com.au\/2010\/06\/europeans-as-other.html","human_ref_B":"In many heavily black populations you'll find the Christian icon of the Last Supper to have all the persons as black, except Judas Iscariot portrayed as white.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16216.0,"score_ratio":1.0714285714} +{"post_id":"4raxdd","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Are there any interesting artistic depictions of caucasian people from other cultures? I've always noticed that in earlier depictions, other races are illustrated weirdly by white people, for example blacks and asians. I wondered if the reverse held true, for instance if native americans\/mesoamericans made any art about settlers, or if dutch traders appear in old japanese paintings. I hope this isn't kind of an ignorant question or something, any info would be awesome.","c_root_id_A":"d4zve4y","c_root_id_B":"d4zwewe","created_at_utc_A":1467719307,"created_at_utc_B":1467721956,"score_A":5,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"I don't have specific examples, but I met a guy who collected prints from the time of the Perry Expedition to Japan (1850s?), and you have their images of these white Europeans\/Americans they're seeing for the first time. What was most interesting was you could see the introduction of Western art and the use of perspective in these prints for the first time in the years to follow, and where artists would attempt it to limited success before finally getting the hang of it.","human_ref_B":"Maybe like this http:\/\/www.smh.com.au\/news\/national\/rock-art-redraws-our-history\/2008\/09\/19\/1221331206960.html or maybe this http:\/\/resobscura.blogspot.com.au\/2010\/06\/europeans-as-other.html","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2649.0,"score_ratio":6.0} +{"post_id":"4raxdd","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Are there any interesting artistic depictions of caucasian people from other cultures? I've always noticed that in earlier depictions, other races are illustrated weirdly by white people, for example blacks and asians. I wondered if the reverse held true, for instance if native americans\/mesoamericans made any art about settlers, or if dutch traders appear in old japanese paintings. I hope this isn't kind of an ignorant question or something, any info would be awesome.","c_root_id_A":"d501hd7","c_root_id_B":"d4zve4y","created_at_utc_A":1467731052,"created_at_utc_B":1467719307,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"This depicts Buddhist tocharians living in western china. Tocharians were a PIE people that migrated east. This may have been drawn by the tocharians themselves (I'm honestly not sure) but at the very least it reflects eastern thought on \"western\" form. By all accounts the Chinese found the tocharians as particularly ugly.","human_ref_B":"I don't have specific examples, but I met a guy who collected prints from the time of the Perry Expedition to Japan (1850s?), and you have their images of these white Europeans\/Americans they're seeing for the first time. What was most interesting was you could see the introduction of Western art and the use of perspective in these prints for the first time in the years to follow, and where artists would attempt it to limited success before finally getting the hang of it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11745.0,"score_ratio":1.6} +{"post_id":"wjcx8j","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"What was the purpose of teenage rebellion in early humans? I assume teenage rebellion isn't something new, so if it isn't, why does it exist? I feel like when life expectancy wasn't much, teenagers were adults and so they needed a mental push to provide? That's just a very uneducated guess tho.","c_root_id_A":"ijjjrli","c_root_id_B":"ijjj3ok","created_at_utc_A":1660021624,"created_at_utc_B":1660021224,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"There\u2019s a famous anthropological study\u2014I think *Adolescence: an Anthropological Inquiry* by Alice Schlegel and Herbert Berry III\u2014that argues, based on a standardized sample of cultures, that small scale cultures in general do *not* experience social tension between teenagers and adults whereas industrial societies do generally have this tension (I cannot remember if there was a finding for non-industrialized complex farming societies). I forget why they argue for tension, but it\u2019s important to see teenage rebellion as something that arises out of specific culture forms.","human_ref_B":"Because it often led to better mate selection. The fact that it coincides with the inception of fertility is the tell. Inbreeding was highly common because of our limited mobility. We generally mated with cousins of the first, second, third and fourth degree. Having a sudden aversion to one\u2019s family at the onset of puberty caused teenagers to seek the companionship and guidance of the people least like their parents and siblings. This usually meant fraternizing with more distant neighboring tribes or people seen less regularly. The more rebellious a teenager was the further they might range leading to more diverse genes and more fit offspring.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":400.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} +{"post_id":"fb6ctk","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"What was the relationship between the Beaker population and the Celts in Ancient Briton? My understanding has been that the ancient Britons were a darker skinned people up until the Beaker population replacement, proposed by modern scientists. Were the Celts members of the Beaker populations? Were the original Celts in Britain a dark skinned peoples?","c_root_id_A":"fj33rvs","c_root_id_B":"fj321e7","created_at_utc_A":1582965789,"created_at_utc_B":1582963376,"score_A":9,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Regarding skin tones and phenotypes, the Neolithic britons were darker than the Bell Beakers, but were not necessarily a dark population. They were fixed for the derived alleles of SLC24A5 and although a minority, some had the derived allele of SLC45A2, which is mainly found in Europeans today and is assosciated with European light skin (aka white). The Bell Beakers had a higher frequency of that second allele than the Neolithic inhabitants of Britain. The relation between Beakers and Celts is like an uncle-nephew relation I guess. Celtic people arose from Central European Bell Beakers, whereas the British Beakers mainly descend from those of the lower Rhine region, a more northernly Bell Beaker group than the central European BBs. These Central European Celts then start spreading across the continent and migrate to Britain as well, more than a 1000 years after the Bell Beakers had already settled on Britain and Ireland. Studies of ancient population genetics seem to indicate that the genetic turnover regarding this migration wasn't very high, so we're probably looking at assimilation and a spread of culture rather than a displacement of British Beakers by Celtic migrations.","human_ref_B":">Were the Celts members of the Beaker populations? Were the original Celts in Britain a dark skinned peoples? The Celts arrived in Britain from continental Europe almost 2000 years after the Beakers, and were fair-skinned. Interestingly, the Beaker folk were predominant in w. Europe (incl. British isles) during the transition from stone age to bronze, and were very likely responsible for the megalithic construction at Stonehenge and many other sites.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2413.0,"score_ratio":1.125} +{"post_id":"3cj9dz","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"What is the difference between a cult and a religion? Not really sure if this is the right place, but if you can answer, I'm very curious.","c_root_id_A":"csw3y6c","c_root_id_B":"csw2i7z","created_at_utc_A":1436358991,"created_at_utc_B":1436354855,"score_A":62,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Here's a definition of the term \"cult\" from a psych PhD specialized in the phenomenon (emphasis mine): >Cult (totalist type): A group or movement exhibiting a **great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing** and employing **unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control** (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.), **designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders**, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community. (West & Langone, 1986, pp. 119-120) So, you've got three main aspects there: excessive devotion to an idea or person, unethical manipulative techniques and a focus on the group leader's interest. To my mind, the most easy to spot (and the one that really marks a distinction between religions and cults) is the second one. Here's a checklist (same source) of cultic practices used to enforce control. Most religions do have some form of conformity enforcement, but they mainly rely on peer pressure, wherehas cults will have sophisticated techniques used to retain control of their members. The first aspect is also interesting. Most religions won't try to control everything about their adherent's life, maybe because it just isn't practical when an organization reaches a certain size.","human_ref_B":"Margaret Thayer Singer wrote a book called \"Cults in our Midst\" that contains a section dealing with this by comparing Catholicism, A Cult, and The U.S. Marine Corps.. (I think it was Catholicism, read it years ago.) It's a good read, for sure, but what I remember as being the major difference was the ability to seek redress.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4136.0,"score_ratio":6.2} +{"post_id":"3cj9dz","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"What is the difference between a cult and a religion? Not really sure if this is the right place, but if you can answer, I'm very curious.","c_root_id_A":"csw3zmu","c_root_id_B":"csw2i7z","created_at_utc_A":1436359092,"created_at_utc_B":1436354855,"score_A":18,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"This is rather like the old joke: What's the difference between a bad and a good haircut; answer - two weeks. Over time, cults that survive tend to gain stature and can be generally regarded as a religion. A cult becomes a religion when non-adherents see the faith as reasonable enough to be accepted as mainstream. Since not all cults are created equally and not all societies are as forgiving or open minded, the length of time for this transition varies with each circumstance.","human_ref_B":"Margaret Thayer Singer wrote a book called \"Cults in our Midst\" that contains a section dealing with this by comparing Catholicism, A Cult, and The U.S. Marine Corps.. (I think it was Catholicism, read it years ago.) It's a good read, for sure, but what I remember as being the major difference was the ability to seek redress.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4237.0,"score_ratio":1.8} +{"post_id":"3cj9dz","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"What is the difference between a cult and a religion? Not really sure if this is the right place, but if you can answer, I'm very curious.","c_root_id_A":"csw7dgo","c_root_id_B":"cszz8ou","created_at_utc_A":1436365960,"created_at_utc_B":1436645445,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Well, cults tend to center around a single entity. Often that entity is a person who is alive (a cult leader). Oftentimes the leader uses fear, manipulation, or intimidation to keep power. Cults tend to be region-specific. Cult beliefs don't tend to vary much from person to person. Religions have changed over time, are practiced differently in different parts of the world. Have different leaders and different practices. They have shown the ability to adapt to new sensibilities or scientific advancement. I would say most major religions were what we would consider a cult at some point, but since then they have expanded and their practitioners have expanded to a point where a religion is very distinct from the cult it once was.","human_ref_B":"A cult is a small, unpopular religion. A religion is a large, popular cult.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":279485.0,"score_ratio":2.0} +{"post_id":"89wpv6","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Afro-Asiatic: What cultural features of the Hausa (and other Chadic peoples) share cognates with cultures of East Africa and the Middle East? There is no doubt that the Chadic peoples of West Africa share common ancestry with Cushites, Egyptians, Berbers, and Semites. Even they acknowledge this, as the Hausa claim their descent from medieval Baghdad in legends. However, what features of their respective cultures tie into this, what festivals or religious ceremonies (a la Hausa Animism) connect these distant groups from their common heritage? Side note: I've studied similarities between Semites, Cushites, Egyptians, and Berbers on my own already. Frankly, the Cushites and Berbers seem to have more in common with Egyptians than Semites do with any of them, but I can see some connections between Canaanite mythology and some Egyptian stories. This question is purely about the features of Chadic cultures, with particular interest, but not isolation on, the Hausa.","c_root_id_A":"dwu9h2n","c_root_id_B":"dwui2rl","created_at_utc_A":1522909990,"created_at_utc_B":1522928061,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Someone that studies A-A societies specifically may be able to give a more comprehensive answer but, in the meantime, you can explore it yourself: https:\/\/d-place.org\/search Under Language, select Afro-Asiatic. Under Culture, select either Ethnographic Atlas (more societies\/breadth) or Standard Cross-Cultural Sample (more variables\/depth), and pick your variables of interest. Hit Search. Go wild. You can also select specific regions, such as West Tropical Africa. For example, belief in a moralizing high god is pretty universal within A-A: https:\/\/d-place.org\/societies?c=%5B%5B35,%22categorical%22,%5B291,292,293,294,290%5D%5D%5D&l=%5B719,730,868,771,720,731,753,703,754,593,739,722,729,573,762,695,760,594,699,798,799,741,788,705,755,865,797,791,700,765,864,733,782,595,728,763,752,779,596,778,724,786,796,734,735,759,693,616,792,603,721,601,657,866,617,571,756,871,694,738,863,785,599,597,715,790,789,873,732,701,776,787,615,870,869,784,872,770,767,795,764,761,781,713,768,702,777,794,697,740,773%5D And, at a glance, male genital mutilation doesn't seem to have anything to do with subsistence: https:\/\/d-place.org\/societies?c=%5B%5B38,%22categorical%22,%5B312,313,314,315,316,317,318,319,320,321,311%5D%5D,%5B43,%22categorical%22,%5B344,345,346,347,348,349,350,351,352,343%5D%5D%5D&l=%5B719,730,868,771,720,731,753,703,754,593,739,722,729,573,762,695,760,594,699,798,799,741,788,705,755,865,797,791,700,765,864,733,782,595,728,763,752,779,596,778,724,786,796,734,735,759,693,616,792,603,721,601,657,866,617,571,756,871,694,738,863,785,599,597,715,790,789,873,732,701,776,787,615,870,869,784,872,770,767,795,764,761,781,713,768,702,777,794,697,740,773%5D","human_ref_B":"I can only have a stab at the biological relationship between the groups. The male ancestry of Chadic speaking peoples entered North Africa in the Neolithic (7k-9k ago), moved south along the Nile then made their way west via the Wadi Howar region. They picked up African wives en route, but their male ancestry is the v88 variant of the Eurasian Y chr R1b. This likely had an origin in the very early Neolithic herding people in the Turkey\/Iran area. You can see traces of the R1b that is upstream from the Chadic V88 marker in Egyptians and other Northern Nile area groups and Berbers. A few years ago an African origin for AA languages was widely pushed by Chris Ehret. This theory had a couple of major flaws. He posited the age of AA languages to be 20k or more, which is ridiculous for two reasons a: 10k is about as old as you can get for a language group. b: It reconstructs to a pre metal working Neolithic group with Asian domesticates. He eventually admitted his dates were well off, halved his age estimate, and that brings AA into a Neolithic time frame and its distribution matches the spread of Neolithic Y chr in Africa and West Asia. Semitic languages all have a bronze age west Asian origin, Chadic may well have split off from the rest of AA languages right at the beginning of the Neolithic and might be around 9k old. So cultural similarities between Chadic and Semitic people will be very limited. I'm afraid cultural anthropology isn't really my thing. >as the Hausa claim their descent from medieval Baghdad in legends Could you post me a link for this? It has tweaked my curiosity.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18071.0,"score_ratio":2.0} +{"post_id":"8t424q","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"Did hunter-gatherers and\/or Pre-Neolithic Farmers ever eat rice, wheat, or other staple crops like this? Since the HG were also **gatherers,** they perhaps were opportunistic in picking up grains, barley, and wheat whenever they found it. I'm sure that they weren't at all picky about their food, and they probably also didn't avoid these foods. What do we know regarding their dependency on these grains and how much they ate?","c_root_id_A":"e14rcxb","c_root_id_B":"e14voyu","created_at_utc_A":1529702896,"created_at_utc_B":1529707368,"score_A":8,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Obviously. Pre-Neolithic farmers would had to have eaten the ancestors of rice, wheat, etc. That obviously means those food products were eaten differently (i.e., they were complements to the traditional wild diet rather than the main course), and were of a different nutritional composition. As time went by, dependance on these foods in some groups would have increased. Why? Population increases? Increased palatability of things like wheat and rice? These things are up for debate.","human_ref_B":"In literally every region where domestication was invented, we see archaeological evidence of indigenous peoples' use of the undomesticated versions of what eventually became domesticated. Sometimes the use of the wild versions of these crops predated the domestication by thousands of years. There's good evidence that people in Southwestern Asia may have been taking advantage of wild wheat and barley 30,000 years ago. That's nearly 20,000 years earlier than we have good evidence for those plants having been domesticated. One estimate done back in the 1960s was that family of 4 collecting wild wheat over a period of about a month or so could hypothetically have collected enough grain to supply themselves with necessary calories for a year. Domestication, and full-on intensive agriculture, is just one step in a long historical process of plant use and cultivation.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4472.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"3lwlj7","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"If genetic variation is advantageous to humans, why do we have a tendency to be xenophobic? It's my understanding that mixed race people are more likely to be healthy due to genetic variation. If this is true, why are things like racism and xenophobia even a thing? Is it related to tribal mentality, and if so, why hasn't the desire to be a healthier species overridden it?","c_root_id_A":"cva0b75","c_root_id_B":"cva0759","created_at_utc_A":1442912473,"created_at_utc_B":1442911916,"score_A":12,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Great question. To start with the latter, probably the easier one to answer. There has been no real need to \"override\" it, life...uh..finds a way, at least in the survival aspect of things. There are issues with inbreeding, and societies have ways of dealing with such problems, generally making it taboo and, like Australian Aboriginal tribes using the Kariera system, develop matrimonial patterns that \"mix up\" gene pools. There is no need to attain genetics from other \"races\" mostly because there are no other races (scientifically speaking), but there is a need to attain genetics from outside ones kin group, because of the much higher likelihood of getting two copies of genes that will cause a genetic disorder. That is how I have come to understand it, though I deal mostly with Cultural Anthropology. Now, to touch on the issue of why things like racism and xenophobia still exist. I suppose, to frame it into the context of genetics, one could be a racist and still find people to successfully breed with. Like L0rka said so correctly \"it's survival of 'good enough\/nailed it'. Racism and xenophobia are still a thing, because they are still *taught* and because it is so much easier to blame others for our problems and because human being are scared shitless of thing they don't know and don't understand, and is hard to look at the big picture of human existence and interaction. Edit: Spelling, its late, forgive me.","human_ref_B":"I am not an anthropologist, but there may be sufficient genetic diversity in the sphere of the neighboring tribes of one phenotype of human to avoid inbreeding. That is to say: with tribal warfare, wives are often abducted, or traded, or children raised by other chieftains, arranged marriages, and so forth. Epigenetic cross-breeding of phenotypes is a relatively new phenomenon in the timeline of human evolution. The last known merge was of Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens, creating the Modern Human (Homo Sapiens Sapiens). I wish I had a better answer for you.. I'm also waiting to see what the legitimate anthropologists have to say on the subject.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":557.0,"score_ratio":4.0} +{"post_id":"3lwlj7","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"If genetic variation is advantageous to humans, why do we have a tendency to be xenophobic? It's my understanding that mixed race people are more likely to be healthy due to genetic variation. If this is true, why are things like racism and xenophobia even a thing? Is it related to tribal mentality, and if so, why hasn't the desire to be a healthier species overridden it?","c_root_id_A":"cva0cxa","c_root_id_B":"cva0759","created_at_utc_A":1442912714,"created_at_utc_B":1442911916,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"A potential line of inquiry is how romantic relationships are affected by racism and xenophobia, if controlled for frequency of interaction. I suspect the patterns would be different than those of friendships. Rape is also something worth considering, where racism and xenophobia might actually have a reverse effect.","human_ref_B":"I am not an anthropologist, but there may be sufficient genetic diversity in the sphere of the neighboring tribes of one phenotype of human to avoid inbreeding. That is to say: with tribal warfare, wives are often abducted, or traded, or children raised by other chieftains, arranged marriages, and so forth. Epigenetic cross-breeding of phenotypes is a relatively new phenomenon in the timeline of human evolution. The last known merge was of Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens, creating the Modern Human (Homo Sapiens Sapiens). I wish I had a better answer for you.. I'm also waiting to see what the legitimate anthropologists have to say on the subject.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":798.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} +{"post_id":"7n33he","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why don't folk\/pagan\/traditional religions proselytize? Hi! I am trying to understand why African folk, pagan, and other traditional religions don't and didn't really proselytize. Did they not care about the afterlife of other peoples? Or is general morality more important to them? For example, according to Pascal's Wager, if I were to encounter a African, Pheonician, Chinese folk, or other deity, would they be upset that I didn't convert? Just to put the question into scope. I've seen several theories: many such societies believe in personal covenants, pluralism, henotheistic ideals, etc. I understand that the theologies of Native American and Hindu\/Buddhist ideals don't really work with proselytization. And in the case of African religions, co-existence seems to be the plan. But is this really a theological thing or more of a \"keep the peace\" things, as with Roman rulers? I see this issue in Ancient Egypt as well, and based on the research I've done it seems proselytization for eternal salvation is exclusive to Abrahamic religions. I do acknowledge modern Eastern salvation groups, like Yiguandao, proselytize, but in the interest or 'moral salvation', not the salvation of Abrahamic faiths. Thanks for your time!","c_root_id_A":"drz72m2","c_root_id_B":"ds18taj","created_at_utc_A":1514683810,"created_at_utc_B":1514808631,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I'm a pagan. The simple answer is that there's nothing in my religion that encourages it. Everyone should be able to have their own gods. We only have a problem if you tell me to put mine down and worship yours. Which, historically, didn't work out super well for us, as it turns out. But hey, we're making a comeback now that the church doesn't control everything which, to me, is a sign that there is nothing inherently better about monotheism. They just had the soldiers on their side for about 1000 years.","human_ref_B":"The kind of universalist, \"my way or the highway\" religiosity we associate with Christianity is very much an aberration from world religions. As others have said, it turns out \"religion\" is pretty indistinguishable from culture and community in most situations. It's simply a given for most cultures that there are \"limits\" to religion--more or less coterminous with a given community--and that there are different gods and spirits that a particular community may not know about. It's true that the devotional practices and sacred knowledge of Indigenous Americans is particularistic rather than universalist. Seminal Indigenous scholar Vine Deloria, Jr. (and ex-Episcopalian priest) describes Indigenous religions as specific revelations given to a specific community (see his book *God is Red*). It would be insulting to the spirit or god to spread around the content of the relationship, almost like lying or gossiping. Sometimes this revelation is specific to an individual or frequently a priestly group or \"medicine society\" within the community who possess religious knowledge that is not available to the community at large. Why did universalizing religions form in the \"Axial age\" of Eurasia\/North Africa? That is a question you should explore. *Karl Popper's famous work on the \"axial age\" in which these religions formed would interest you and be an important reference point. You might also look into the work of Miguel Leon-Portilla work on Aztec thought and culture. He reconstructs the philosophy of Aztec sages, which compares to universalizing aspects of the more familiar Eurasian religions\/philosophies. His book *Aztec Thought and Culture* is a masterpiece. *Edit: meant Karl Jaspers","labels":0,"seconds_difference":124821.0,"score_ratio":1.4} +{"post_id":"7n33he","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why don't folk\/pagan\/traditional religions proselytize? Hi! I am trying to understand why African folk, pagan, and other traditional religions don't and didn't really proselytize. Did they not care about the afterlife of other peoples? Or is general morality more important to them? For example, according to Pascal's Wager, if I were to encounter a African, Pheonician, Chinese folk, or other deity, would they be upset that I didn't convert? Just to put the question into scope. I've seen several theories: many such societies believe in personal covenants, pluralism, henotheistic ideals, etc. I understand that the theologies of Native American and Hindu\/Buddhist ideals don't really work with proselytization. And in the case of African religions, co-existence seems to be the plan. But is this really a theological thing or more of a \"keep the peace\" things, as with Roman rulers? I see this issue in Ancient Egypt as well, and based on the research I've done it seems proselytization for eternal salvation is exclusive to Abrahamic religions. I do acknowledge modern Eastern salvation groups, like Yiguandao, proselytize, but in the interest or 'moral salvation', not the salvation of Abrahamic faiths. Thanks for your time!","c_root_id_A":"ds11q8h","c_root_id_B":"ds18taj","created_at_utc_A":1514788215,"created_at_utc_B":1514808631,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"First of all, everything said below is correct, but you need to think about it in terms of historical and cultural context, not just in terms of \"what this or that religion believes\". One reading of Buddhism may say you shouldn't proselytize, and another may say the exact opposite. In fact Buddhism was spread by heavy proselytism (it wasn't exactly proselytism as much as conversion). Most religion outside of the West is less individualistic and more communal- we speak of the entirety of Tibet being converted to Buddhism in the 7th century AD by the Indian saint Padmasambhava, or the spread of Buddhism. In fact, as a religion emerging from the so-called Axial Age, Buddhism shares much more in common with religious reformations like Christianity than is normally recognized. It too reacted against a conservative priest-like order like Christianity did with Judaism, it redefined what it means to have religious law, based on universal compassion, etc. It is NOT, in my mind, that these religions who don't stress conversion are necessarily more pluralistic, there are many many oppressive aspects of religions like Hinduism, and there were Hindu empires that stretched the globe, i.e in Bali, Indonesia. But in terms of \"animism\" (which is really an outdated term), folk religion, its because religion wasn't separated from daily life. Religion wasn't something that needed to be taught. In short, Abrahamic faiths require complete submission to one God, but the fact that other religions don't proselytize isn't because of their inherent \"tolerance\", its because of cultural isolation, etc.","human_ref_B":"The kind of universalist, \"my way or the highway\" religiosity we associate with Christianity is very much an aberration from world religions. As others have said, it turns out \"religion\" is pretty indistinguishable from culture and community in most situations. It's simply a given for most cultures that there are \"limits\" to religion--more or less coterminous with a given community--and that there are different gods and spirits that a particular community may not know about. It's true that the devotional practices and sacred knowledge of Indigenous Americans is particularistic rather than universalist. Seminal Indigenous scholar Vine Deloria, Jr. (and ex-Episcopalian priest) describes Indigenous religions as specific revelations given to a specific community (see his book *God is Red*). It would be insulting to the spirit or god to spread around the content of the relationship, almost like lying or gossiping. Sometimes this revelation is specific to an individual or frequently a priestly group or \"medicine society\" within the community who possess religious knowledge that is not available to the community at large. Why did universalizing religions form in the \"Axial age\" of Eurasia\/North Africa? That is a question you should explore. *Karl Popper's famous work on the \"axial age\" in which these religions formed would interest you and be an important reference point. You might also look into the work of Miguel Leon-Portilla work on Aztec thought and culture. He reconstructs the philosophy of Aztec sages, which compares to universalizing aspects of the more familiar Eurasian religions\/philosophies. His book *Aztec Thought and Culture* is a masterpiece. *Edit: meant Karl Jaspers","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20416.0,"score_ratio":3.5} +{"post_id":"1t331w","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"What would you say the key difference is between history and anthropology?","c_root_id_A":"ce3z0iw","c_root_id_B":"ce47d7t","created_at_utc_A":1387301511,"created_at_utc_B":1387319649,"score_A":8,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"History starts with the first written records, anthropology is not limited by historical records, because it examines humans in general.","human_ref_B":"Maybe it's because I'm an archaeologist, but I like to understand things by looking at how they developed through time. History is a very old discipline that originally was the study of tings that happened in the past primarily through written records, mostly because there wasn't anything else to go from. Anthropology developed as all the core social sciences (economics, sociology, geography, psychology, linguistics, anthropology, etc.) were developing in the 19th century and early 20th centuries as Europeans explored the world more fully, developed a love for classifying things, and took a great interest in understanding both the natural and human worlds. In this context, history was, well, history, and continued to study and try to make sense of predominantly the European past. Sociology, psychiatry, and geography were ways to study and understand predominantly Europeans and European society. Anthropology was a classic study of \"the other,\" going to all the places that Europeans had recently stumbled upon and trying to describe and understand the people living there. Often with a very colonial agenda in place. Archaeology developed within this context too, but it came out of very different backgrounds in Europe versus North America. In Europe it was generally aligned with geology or geography (for the deep past) or with history (for the more recent past). In North America, it was aligned with anthropology because natives were seen as \"living fossils,\" or people who were essentially unchanged from their ancestors, meaning that we could study the living people and assume that the past people were the same (this is entirely wrong, of course, but that's the early 20th century for you). As all of these disciplines developed their primary focuses grew and evolved so that today there is a ton of cross-over, but they all developed theoretically and methodological roots that still keep them different enough to be separate (although your readings might cross disciplinary lines, chances are all but the most hard-core interdisciplinarians are reading primarily within their own discipline). So today, historians still study the past primarily from written records, though they may include oral histories (traditionally anthropology). Social-cultural anthropologists study living people, not just in other places but also closer to home (though the ones in my department tend to focus on immigrant experiences within Canadian society, or work with other marginalized groups like First Nations or the poor. They aren't looking at the typical 40-something middle class white male, let's just say). But they still focus on the individual experience within the context of the bigger picture (whereas sociology and geography tend to look at the broader social trends). And the method is still participant observation, or actually living with and interacting with the community you are studying, rather than being some outsider. In order to understand this context, sociocultural anthropologists will often look to the historical record of the area they are studying, so that is some cross-over with history. Physical anthropology studies human and primate evolution and modern human biological diversity. I like to think of archaeology as being more of a method of doing anthropology than as a specific field of study, though of course we have our own theories. There is a lot of room for cross-over with traditional history here, but archaeologists are fundamentally focused on material culture and the physical traces that humans leave, whereas history is focused on written records and pays little attention to material culture. Archaeology also studies a great range of societies that had absolutely no written records and are not at all informed by history. And then some archaeologists study how living people interact with their material culture; at its core this is to help us understand the archaeological record, but there are few disciplines that really study how people interact with their material culture, and in some ways this ethnoarchaeology is filling that gap. But that is some cross-over with sociocultural anthropology. And then there's linguistic anthropology. I don't know much about linguistic anthropology. A big part of it is understanding how human language shapes human experience, but there is a lot of crossover with pure linguistics which, as I understand it, is more focused on understanding the structure and evolution of language and of the mechanisms of human speech.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18138.0,"score_ratio":2.75} +{"post_id":"1t331w","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"What would you say the key difference is between history and anthropology?","c_root_id_A":"ce47d7t","c_root_id_B":"ce3zyd6","created_at_utc_A":1387319649,"created_at_utc_B":1387303601,"score_A":22,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Maybe it's because I'm an archaeologist, but I like to understand things by looking at how they developed through time. History is a very old discipline that originally was the study of tings that happened in the past primarily through written records, mostly because there wasn't anything else to go from. Anthropology developed as all the core social sciences (economics, sociology, geography, psychology, linguistics, anthropology, etc.) were developing in the 19th century and early 20th centuries as Europeans explored the world more fully, developed a love for classifying things, and took a great interest in understanding both the natural and human worlds. In this context, history was, well, history, and continued to study and try to make sense of predominantly the European past. Sociology, psychiatry, and geography were ways to study and understand predominantly Europeans and European society. Anthropology was a classic study of \"the other,\" going to all the places that Europeans had recently stumbled upon and trying to describe and understand the people living there. Often with a very colonial agenda in place. Archaeology developed within this context too, but it came out of very different backgrounds in Europe versus North America. In Europe it was generally aligned with geology or geography (for the deep past) or with history (for the more recent past). In North America, it was aligned with anthropology because natives were seen as \"living fossils,\" or people who were essentially unchanged from their ancestors, meaning that we could study the living people and assume that the past people were the same (this is entirely wrong, of course, but that's the early 20th century for you). As all of these disciplines developed their primary focuses grew and evolved so that today there is a ton of cross-over, but they all developed theoretically and methodological roots that still keep them different enough to be separate (although your readings might cross disciplinary lines, chances are all but the most hard-core interdisciplinarians are reading primarily within their own discipline). So today, historians still study the past primarily from written records, though they may include oral histories (traditionally anthropology). Social-cultural anthropologists study living people, not just in other places but also closer to home (though the ones in my department tend to focus on immigrant experiences within Canadian society, or work with other marginalized groups like First Nations or the poor. They aren't looking at the typical 40-something middle class white male, let's just say). But they still focus on the individual experience within the context of the bigger picture (whereas sociology and geography tend to look at the broader social trends). And the method is still participant observation, or actually living with and interacting with the community you are studying, rather than being some outsider. In order to understand this context, sociocultural anthropologists will often look to the historical record of the area they are studying, so that is some cross-over with history. Physical anthropology studies human and primate evolution and modern human biological diversity. I like to think of archaeology as being more of a method of doing anthropology than as a specific field of study, though of course we have our own theories. There is a lot of room for cross-over with traditional history here, but archaeologists are fundamentally focused on material culture and the physical traces that humans leave, whereas history is focused on written records and pays little attention to material culture. Archaeology also studies a great range of societies that had absolutely no written records and are not at all informed by history. And then some archaeologists study how living people interact with their material culture; at its core this is to help us understand the archaeological record, but there are few disciplines that really study how people interact with their material culture, and in some ways this ethnoarchaeology is filling that gap. But that is some cross-over with sociocultural anthropology. And then there's linguistic anthropology. I don't know much about linguistic anthropology. A big part of it is understanding how human language shapes human experience, but there is a lot of crossover with pure linguistics which, as I understand it, is more focused on understanding the structure and evolution of language and of the mechanisms of human speech.","human_ref_B":"I'm reminded of a couple of quotes that apply to history that are from a paper I recently read. \"Both history and geography are essentially chorological. History arranges phenomena in time, geography in space\" (Schaeffer 1953:235). \"History or historical research is the ascertainment of events that occured in the past\" (Schaeffer 1953:236). With these quotes in mind it's easy to see the difference, though of course there is overlap (as there is in many disciplines). Anthropology seeks to understand cultural elements. How do people live day-to-day? What are their world views? How do people situate themselves in the natural world around them? These are only a couple of anthropological-type questions.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16048.0,"score_ratio":7.3333333333} +{"post_id":"ui7rfw","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"is studying Anthropology the way to do work like this? Hello everyone I'm currently in work so my message will be short and might not be the best written so sorry :) I'm currently working on building sites learning to become an electrician basically I'm an apprentice I've worked in Spain and UAE too, I've always had a huge passion for cultures around the world espeically ones that are barley contacted, tribal if that's the word you would use and genuinely every culture European African Asian all fascinate me, I also, research lots in balkan history and any other history I stumble onto. I currently live in Ireland and am questioning career choices I'm wondering if I wanted to study cultures by meeting the culture and people I would be studying hypothetically and live there and research it, like an ethnographer would this course be the right choice to possibly work in a career liek that? Sorry if I'm coming across as uneducated I genuinely just trying to learn about it more thank you so much","c_root_id_A":"i7bxxoq","c_root_id_B":"i7b8ww8","created_at_utc_A":1651692723,"created_at_utc_B":1651682964,"score_A":14,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I mostly agree with what has already been said in the first two comments. I'll try to speak a bit more about the necessary frame of mind for engaging with this sort of thing. Going into this, I hope you don't take this too personally, as this isn't directed at you in particular, but instead at anyone reading who has similar aspirations or thoughts about wanting to go and explore all the beautiful cultures of the world. It is important to approach any question involving the cultures of other humans and the ways in which we interact with them by first considering that whoever you are talking about is, at the end of the day, human. Each person you ever meet is trying to get along, whatever that means for them. Trying to build their own relationships and meet their own goals in life. They are living their life. They are not objects of study. They are not living in order to serve as objects of study. They are humans. We can all talk with each other and transform the endeavor of cultural comparison and investigation into an academic field, but at the end of the day this comes secondary to respecting each person's humanity and right to say \"no, do not study me or my community.\" For this reason, the study of \"uncontacted\" people that is carried out by going into these communities, living with them, and treating them like objects of study is simply not okay. Any interaction with another culture should be done with the utmost respect and deference to them as humans. There is a common scientific impulse in our Western culture (perhaps in all humans, but I'm not sure) to exhaustively catalog and understand everything. We want to discover all the flora and fauna around us, classify every star, etc. In some ways, this impulse is beautiful and can result in good. But it is not universally so. This impulse can carry over into a desire to catalog every possible type of human culture, every varied language and all of their nuanced details. This turns living, breathing humans with lives of their own into objects of study. It places taxonomy over humanity. It can result in material harm that affects other humans and communities at the cost of satisfying this impulse, and surely that isn't worth it? We'll be okay if we don't get to document *everything* under the sun. So, let's say you want to seriously spend time within, say, the I\u00f1upiaq community (just throwing out an example because I understand that they have a strong cultural presence; obviously not implying that they're uncontacted). You need to ask them if they are okay with that. If they ask you to leave, or to refrain from a particular practice that goes against a cultural rule of theirs or threatens to cause problems in their community \u2014 anything like that \u2014 you respect them and do as they wish. If permission is given for any sort of \"documentation,\" the relationship should not be one of study and observation of an object; it should not involve you merely recording your own perceptions or musings on their culture from your outsider perspective. You should be a mouthpiece for their own representation on their own terms. Your work should benefit them in some way. Otherwise, you are simply taking. If you honestly and faithfully represent them as they wish to be represented, then at that point you can start to move into the territory of talking about their culture in comparison to others. Anthropology and ethnography in the way we refer to it today is a relatively recent, Western institution. Its history is filled to the brim with stories of European or European-American people going to communities and representing them through a shifted, Western lens instead of letting them represent themselves. But every group should be allowed to represent themselves. The history is also filled to the brim with stories of these ethnographers and anthropologists harming the communities in ways other than refusing to let them speak for themselves. Mistreating individuals, raping women, stealing objects. These are only the actions that I can recall specifically, though I'm certain that others have caused harmful structural damage to the communities that they went to. If these appeals to humanity aren't convincing enough for anyone, then there is an academic argument for behaving this way, too. Letting other communities speak for themselves gives the truest window into their world and culture. They live it every day. So, taking on the role of the 'faithful mouthpiece' does in some sense lead to more \"accurate\" data. On top of this, deviating from this role and harming communities (whether that be through direct means or through misrepresentation) erodes the trust and reputation of the anthropological community as a whole, which poisons future cross-cultural conversations and interactions. I don't think these academic arguments should be necessary. As I made clear, I think respecting the humanity of everyone comes first. Still, these academic reasons offer additional support.","human_ref_B":"I agree with u\/the_blade_itself in their response. The field of anthropology was largely founded by racist, sexist, imperialist white supremacists and the field is doing a lot to move past that history. There\u2019s a lot pf nuance to anthropology, especially if you look into the subfields. There\u2019s tons to do and tons to learn. In the nicest way possible, I wouldn\u2019t go into anthropology if what your plan is to study \u201cbarely contacted people\u201d because thats not the goal of anthropology. (Ie: North Sentinel Island) To me at least, anthro is learning what it means to be human. In the cultural sense, biologic sense, and in death. To \u201cstudy\u201d living people allows huge advantages that say, archaeologists don\u2019t usually have in most cases. Anthropology now works on ethics and studying living people just because you want to or you think they\u2019re interesting as if they are zoo exhibits is not the best reason to go into anthro. A lot of anthro is learning about different people and learning what challenges they face and why then documenting it without disturbing them. It\u2019s working with the community and helping them learn more about themselves and their past if they so choose. The way you phrase your post, and I am willing to believe it\u2019s because of that disclaimer that you\u2019re at work and hope that the language here is rushed, it sounds like you want to study people with no idea of if the people you want to study *want* to be studied. In archaeology, which is a subfield of anthro, it\u2019s pretty easy to know when you\u2019re crossing a line with the community- you\u2019re likely digging where they don\u2019t want you to dig and disturbing their ancestors and living community. To be an ethnographer allows for more gray area simply because these people are alive and if you are an anthropologist with the authority of science behind you, why would they not feel intimidated to comply? My degree is in evolutionary anthropology which I focused on bioarchaeology, so thats a lot of osteology and genetics. If what you\u2019d like to do is study why humans are the way we are and why culture emerges and creates beautiful diversity in humans, it could be a great field for you.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9759.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} +{"post_id":"8t91vh","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Is there any such thing as a translated soundtrack? Do the connections between emotions and musical scales differ across cultures? If so, does this mean that movie soundtracks and musical cues need to be 'translated' along with dialogue in some circumstances?","c_root_id_A":"e15uxns","c_root_id_B":"e15rsku","created_at_utc_A":1529762705,"created_at_utc_B":1529758395,"score_A":9,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I don't believe anyone has ever tried to rewrite the score for a film to localize it for the international audience. I have seen the case where popular music in a soundtrack was swapped out for corresponding popular music from the new country. Specifically it was a Japanese animated film which originally used J Rock music, but when it was dubbed to English they put American rock in instead (Linkin Park and Stabbing Westword if I remember correctly). But, everyone hated that decision. As for differences in music culturally. There are some tonality differences in cultures that relate to emotion. A few examples would be the Chinese and Japanese use of pentatonic scales (scales with 5 notes), the Indian Ragas can contain anywhere from 5 to 12 notes in an octave and use up to 22 chromatic pitches in an octave (Western music uses 7 tone scales and 12 chromatic pitches). Middle Eastern music also uses more chromatic notes than Western music and values \"quarter step\" sequences in melodies, and most strange of all is the Javanese Gamelan music which uses out of tune instruments on purpose to create a sound effect called \"ombak\" made from the sonic dissonance between two notes only an eighth of a step apart. That said, with Western ideals being shipped across the world through the British and French Empires and then later the American film and music industry, most films that aim for larger audiences will stick to more western approachable ideals. If you listen to music from Bollywood movies, they dont sound much different from American music, there is just a slight Indian influence added to it, and some instrumentation changes, but otherwise tonality stays mostly the same. Compare it to Indian Classical and folk music and you will see massive differences. TL:DR - There are a lot of tonality differences in music between global cultures, but the Western ideal for popular music has somewhat become the shorthand for most international popular media.","human_ref_B":"Interesting question! I\u2019m not sure if these things vary across cultures, but your question reminded me of this TED talk: https:\/\/www.ted.com\/talks\/bobby_mcferrin_hacks_your_brain_with_music\/up-next","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4310.0,"score_ratio":2.25} +{"post_id":"2h8ghf","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Certain practices of indigenous groups (scarification, head-hunting, ritualized homosexuality, and neck elongation) are seen as bizarre and sometimes disturbing to the West. Are any Western cultural practices met with the same reaction by indigenous groups?","c_root_id_A":"ckqoijt","c_root_id_B":"ckqqo90","created_at_utc_A":1411509979,"created_at_utc_B":1411514441,"score_A":17,"score_B":48,"human_ref_A":"I am an interested party, but have no direct knowledge myself. I am, however, aware that even \"standard Western cultural practices\" can appear bizarre when viewed as an outside. This is the point behind the journal article \"Body Ritual among the Nacirema\", published in 1956, and subsequent similar works, as outlined on the \"Nacirema\" W wiki page. One example from tbe \"Body Ritual...\" article: > In the hierarchy of magical practitioners, and below the medicine men in prestige, are specialists whose designation is best translated as \"holy-mouth-men.\" The Nacirema have an almost pathological horror of and fascination with the mouth, the condition of which is believed to have a supernatural influence on all social relationships. Were it not for the rituals of the mouth, they believe that their teeth would fall out, their gums bleed, their jaws shrink, their friends desert them, and their lovers reject them. They also believe that a strong relationship exists between oral and moral characteristics. For example, there is a ritual ablution of the mouth for children which is supposed to improve their moral fiber","human_ref_B":"My anthro professor spent a lot of time in Papua New Guinea. They would eat larva and other things we would definitely find disgusting. But on the flip side, apparently they found cheese to be horribly disgusting. Made me think about my love for what's basically rotten milk.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4462.0,"score_ratio":2.8235294118} +{"post_id":"2h8ghf","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Certain practices of indigenous groups (scarification, head-hunting, ritualized homosexuality, and neck elongation) are seen as bizarre and sometimes disturbing to the West. Are any Western cultural practices met with the same reaction by indigenous groups?","c_root_id_A":"ckuetjq","c_root_id_B":"ckqtewi","created_at_utc_A":1411871914,"created_at_utc_B":1411520334,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Daniel Everett has some in his ethnography of the Piraha. When they go into the city, the Piraha are horrified by cars. They call them \"worse than jaguars.\" They also refuse to walk side-by-side with Everett down the sidewalk, walking in single file instead. Walking single file is safer in the Amazonian rain forest.","human_ref_B":"Mod reminder: provide sources and in-depth explanations for answers. If your source is personal fieldwork and OP is OK with that as a source you still need to establish that in a reflexive manner and explain the local cultural norms that conflict.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":351580.0,"score_ratio":2.0} +{"post_id":"qjzt8p","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Recommendations of books about cultural variations in mental health\/illness? I'm very interested in the differences in psychology between different cultural groups. I recently read 'crazy like us' and I found the different case studies into it fascinating. I've read up a little about culture bound syndromes outlined in the DSM but I was wondering if there are any similar books with case studies like 'crazy like us'. Preferably not too academic as I can struggle to concentrate if it's written in very complex terms","c_root_id_A":"hitfswg","c_root_id_B":"hitx1th","created_at_utc_A":1635718842,"created_at_utc_B":1635727570,"score_A":23,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"Check out Tanya Luhrmann\u2019s \u201cOur Most Troubling Madness\u201d Cross-cultural view of schizophrenia.","human_ref_B":"You might enjoy Fadiman\u2019s *The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down*. It\u2019s not about psychology per se, but it\u2019s an interesting case study about two cultures\u2019 perspectives on the treatment of what we could call a neurological disorder. Not sure if it\u2019s what you\u2019re looking for, but might be interesting for you.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8728.0,"score_ratio":1.4347826087} +{"post_id":"qjzt8p","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Recommendations of books about cultural variations in mental health\/illness? I'm very interested in the differences in psychology between different cultural groups. I recently read 'crazy like us' and I found the different case studies into it fascinating. I've read up a little about culture bound syndromes outlined in the DSM but I was wondering if there are any similar books with case studies like 'crazy like us'. Preferably not too academic as I can struggle to concentrate if it's written in very complex terms","c_root_id_A":"hiuy6h3","c_root_id_B":"hivkmbp","created_at_utc_A":1635750849,"created_at_utc_B":1635769813,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"While not necessarily a cross-cultural comparison per se, Junko Kitanaka's ethnography of psychiatric clinical practice in Japan deals with the tension between recent, 'medicalised' conceptions of depression and suicide, and other historically rooted ideas surrounding mental illness. I seem to remember it being an interesting read: https:\/\/press.princeton.edu\/books\/paperback\/9780691142050\/depression-in-japan","human_ref_B":"Crazy Like Us is pretty much the bible for this topic. Some other notable authors not already mentioned include: Margaret Mead (Coming of Age in Samoa) Ruth Benedict (The Chrysanthemum and the Sword) \\***Arthur Rubel (Susto: A Folk Illness)** Katherine Lutz (Unnatural Emotions) Jeanne Briggs (Never in Anger) Julia Cassaniti (Living Buddhism) \\***Richard Shweder (Why Do Men Barbecue?)** Bambi Chapin (Childhood in a Sri Lankan Village) Emily Martin (Bipolar Expeditions) \\***Naomi Quinn (Attachment Reconsidered)** George Makari (Soul Machine: The Invention of the Modern Mind) Nikolas Rose (Inventing Our Selves) \\***Andrew Beatty (Emotional Worlds: Beyond an Anthropology of Emotion)** Joseph Henrich (The WEIRDest People in the World) Some are more accessible than others (read the reviews and a sample of the text if you can), but all are good introductions to the field of \"psychological anthropology\" and\/or \"cultural psychology.\" Edit: added a couple more and starred the ones that seem most relevant\/are most like case studies.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18964.0,"score_ratio":1.2} +{"post_id":"qjzt8p","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Recommendations of books about cultural variations in mental health\/illness? I'm very interested in the differences in psychology between different cultural groups. I recently read 'crazy like us' and I found the different case studies into it fascinating. I've read up a little about culture bound syndromes outlined in the DSM but I was wondering if there are any similar books with case studies like 'crazy like us'. Preferably not too academic as I can struggle to concentrate if it's written in very complex terms","c_root_id_A":"hivkmbp","c_root_id_B":"hiv2g97","created_at_utc_A":1635769813,"created_at_utc_B":1635754969,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Crazy Like Us is pretty much the bible for this topic. Some other notable authors not already mentioned include: Margaret Mead (Coming of Age in Samoa) Ruth Benedict (The Chrysanthemum and the Sword) \\***Arthur Rubel (Susto: A Folk Illness)** Katherine Lutz (Unnatural Emotions) Jeanne Briggs (Never in Anger) Julia Cassaniti (Living Buddhism) \\***Richard Shweder (Why Do Men Barbecue?)** Bambi Chapin (Childhood in a Sri Lankan Village) Emily Martin (Bipolar Expeditions) \\***Naomi Quinn (Attachment Reconsidered)** George Makari (Soul Machine: The Invention of the Modern Mind) Nikolas Rose (Inventing Our Selves) \\***Andrew Beatty (Emotional Worlds: Beyond an Anthropology of Emotion)** Joseph Henrich (The WEIRDest People in the World) Some are more accessible than others (read the reviews and a sample of the text if you can), but all are good introductions to the field of \"psychological anthropology\" and\/or \"cultural psychology.\" Edit: added a couple more and starred the ones that seem most relevant\/are most like case studies.","human_ref_B":"If you\u2019re studying psychology, it might do you some good to look at Paul Farmer\u2019s work. He mostly works in infectious diseases, but he\u2019s written extensively on human rights and social systems in relation to medical anthropology. It may help with some grounding in the field and especially in how social practices and western medicine can struggle to mesh.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14844.0,"score_ratio":2.0} +{"post_id":"2x9zup","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"AskAnthropology when do you become an Anthropologist? This question stems from the fact that I've seen a number of respondents to questions begin with, \"Lowly undergrad here.\" As if they felt that they had no authority to respond. I too am an undergrad, but the moment I committed to Anthropology as my major and life trajectory, I feel I became an Anthropologist. I can attest to a number of times where I've asked questions about the things I'm interested in (postmodernist interpretive theory for instance) and the professor couldn't answer, but point me in a direction. So for me becoming an Anthropologist is about declaring it as an identity. I don't lack the quality of Anthropologist, but the quantity of experiences as such. What do you all think?","c_root_id_A":"coyahcs","c_root_id_B":"coya5lx","created_at_utc_A":1424989254,"created_at_utc_B":1424988724,"score_A":13,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I think the word is basically meaningless. If someone tells me they are an anthropologist, I don't know if they study ancient human remains, lemurs, HIV and drug use among homeless Torontonians, cyber culture, or astronomers. Etc. Etc. This reminds me of an embarrassing story...one that I will recount here at my own personal expense. I had just given my first ever conference talk and I was feeling all fancy and professional. I went out for a smoke. I was totally exhausted on account of a bad case of nerves the night before. As I'm smoking, a woman asked me what I study. \"Anthropology\", I replied. At an anthropology conference. I will NEVER forget the look I got. This is also the same conference where I engaged in the all-too-common \"curious handshake that goes on too long\" with literally everyone.","human_ref_B":"The general consensus seems to be if you: 1. Get a job as an anthropologist. There aren't many anthropology jobs you can hold with just a BA but there are a few, like a shovel bum. 2. Work in academia in an anthropology department and publish anthropological works. This requires a graduate degree.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":530.0,"score_ratio":1.3} +{"post_id":"4cpfck","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"What are the career options and advice to give to someone into philosophical anthropology?","c_root_id_A":"d1kokth","c_root_id_B":"d1ksvc7","created_at_utc_A":1459445937,"created_at_utc_B":1459451359,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"In all seriousness: COMEDY! You would be in good company on both fronts. Also some companies now have people in charge of cultivating company culture or aiding in globalization\/internationalization\/localization\/intercultural communication etc. My advice would be to think long term about how to use your knowledge to not fall victim to joblessness via automation and laugh at all the accountants and lawyers and mediocre programmers telling you to get ready to panhandle\/dumpster dive because their jobs will be done by robots in 10 years and if you work it right yours might not.","human_ref_B":"What is philosophical anthropology?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5422.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"9pjd1s","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"Why was lactose intolerence past weaning naturally selected in humans? We've all heard the story about lactose tolerance evolving with the domestication of the cow allowing for a more vitamin D rich diet in low sunlight area but why was lactose intolerance naturally selected for in the first place. People always argue that's it's because as we move onto solid foods we no longer need milk for nutrients which is fair enough but surely there's more to it than that. I mean wouldn't lactose tollerence have to be selected against for this to happen. Even though we stopped drinking milk past weaning I don't see why we wouldn't just retain the ability to create lactase unless there's a clear disadvantage to doing so. Are there any theory's on this because the idea that it happens simply because we stop drinking milk doesn't make evolutionary sense to me. Then again, I'm not an anthropologist.","c_root_id_A":"e824i42","c_root_id_B":"e82btvm","created_at_utc_A":1539953693,"created_at_utc_B":1539960758,"score_A":7,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"It is theorized the relevant allele was spread by Indo-European language-family tribes. Along with their many other advantages (horses, wheels, etc) they had developed or learned dairy farming. Dairy farming produces five times as many calories per acre as raising cattle and builds stronger bones. This gives these tribes a massive population growth advantage. \u201cAdults who could digest raw milk had an excellent source of food on the hoof. Cattle could go on turning grass into milk for years before they were slaughtered for beef. It has been proposed that lactase persistence was the genetic edge that allowed the dairy pastoralist Indo-Europeans to spread. Dairy farming produces five times as many calories per acre as raising cattle for slaughter. The protein and calcium of milk certainly build bones. Prehistoric dairy farmers tended to be taller than other farmers.\u201d Excerpt From Ancestral Journeys: The Peopling of Europe from the First Venturers to the Vikings (Revised Edition)","human_ref_B":"Apparently I answered the wrong question. The most correct reading of the question is that intolerance was not selected in humans, it is a trait inherited from common ancestors. In general the premise is incorrect. Evolution didn't select for lactase intolerance, lactase persistence just has no advantage or disadvantage with out an abundance of milk. With no selective pressure traits and alleles are free to vary randomly in the population.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7065.0,"score_ratio":3.1428571429} +{"post_id":"9pjd1s","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"Why was lactose intolerence past weaning naturally selected in humans? We've all heard the story about lactose tolerance evolving with the domestication of the cow allowing for a more vitamin D rich diet in low sunlight area but why was lactose intolerance naturally selected for in the first place. People always argue that's it's because as we move onto solid foods we no longer need milk for nutrients which is fair enough but surely there's more to it than that. I mean wouldn't lactose tollerence have to be selected against for this to happen. Even though we stopped drinking milk past weaning I don't see why we wouldn't just retain the ability to create lactase unless there's a clear disadvantage to doing so. Are there any theory's on this because the idea that it happens simply because we stop drinking milk doesn't make evolutionary sense to me. Then again, I'm not an anthropologist.","c_root_id_A":"e82btvm","c_root_id_B":"e82ax18","created_at_utc_A":1539960758,"created_at_utc_B":1539959969,"score_A":22,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Apparently I answered the wrong question. The most correct reading of the question is that intolerance was not selected in humans, it is a trait inherited from common ancestors. In general the premise is incorrect. Evolution didn't select for lactase intolerance, lactase persistence just has no advantage or disadvantage with out an abundance of milk. With no selective pressure traits and alleles are free to vary randomly in the population.","human_ref_B":"Does lactase stop being produced after weaning or do we wean because lactase stops being produced? I assume it's the latter. So the advantage is to facilitate weaning, making it easier for mothers to nurse their newborns.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":789.0,"score_ratio":11.0} +{"post_id":"9pjd1s","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"Why was lactose intolerence past weaning naturally selected in humans? We've all heard the story about lactose tolerance evolving with the domestication of the cow allowing for a more vitamin D rich diet in low sunlight area but why was lactose intolerance naturally selected for in the first place. People always argue that's it's because as we move onto solid foods we no longer need milk for nutrients which is fair enough but surely there's more to it than that. I mean wouldn't lactose tollerence have to be selected against for this to happen. Even though we stopped drinking milk past weaning I don't see why we wouldn't just retain the ability to create lactase unless there's a clear disadvantage to doing so. Are there any theory's on this because the idea that it happens simply because we stop drinking milk doesn't make evolutionary sense to me. Then again, I'm not an anthropologist.","c_root_id_A":"e824i42","c_root_id_B":"e82ghli","created_at_utc_A":1539953693,"created_at_utc_B":1539964704,"score_A":7,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"It is theorized the relevant allele was spread by Indo-European language-family tribes. Along with their many other advantages (horses, wheels, etc) they had developed or learned dairy farming. Dairy farming produces five times as many calories per acre as raising cattle and builds stronger bones. This gives these tribes a massive population growth advantage. \u201cAdults who could digest raw milk had an excellent source of food on the hoof. Cattle could go on turning grass into milk for years before they were slaughtered for beef. It has been proposed that lactase persistence was the genetic edge that allowed the dairy pastoralist Indo-Europeans to spread. Dairy farming produces five times as many calories per acre as raising cattle for slaughter. The protein and calcium of milk certainly build bones. Prehistoric dairy farmers tended to be taller than other farmers.\u201d Excerpt From Ancestral Journeys: The Peopling of Europe from the First Venturers to the Vikings (Revised Edition)","human_ref_B":"Lactose intolerance is the norm for all mammals. Some humans adapted the ability digest milk into adulthood after we started domesticating animals, per the u\/ihateaccounts90 comment.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11011.0,"score_ratio":2.4285714286} +{"post_id":"9pjd1s","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"Why was lactose intolerence past weaning naturally selected in humans? We've all heard the story about lactose tolerance evolving with the domestication of the cow allowing for a more vitamin D rich diet in low sunlight area but why was lactose intolerance naturally selected for in the first place. People always argue that's it's because as we move onto solid foods we no longer need milk for nutrients which is fair enough but surely there's more to it than that. I mean wouldn't lactose tollerence have to be selected against for this to happen. Even though we stopped drinking milk past weaning I don't see why we wouldn't just retain the ability to create lactase unless there's a clear disadvantage to doing so. Are there any theory's on this because the idea that it happens simply because we stop drinking milk doesn't make evolutionary sense to me. Then again, I'm not an anthropologist.","c_root_id_A":"e82ghli","c_root_id_B":"e82ax18","created_at_utc_A":1539964704,"created_at_utc_B":1539959969,"score_A":17,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Lactose intolerance is the norm for all mammals. Some humans adapted the ability digest milk into adulthood after we started domesticating animals, per the u\/ihateaccounts90 comment.","human_ref_B":"Does lactase stop being produced after weaning or do we wean because lactase stops being produced? I assume it's the latter. So the advantage is to facilitate weaning, making it easier for mothers to nurse their newborns.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4735.0,"score_ratio":8.5} +{"post_id":"9pjd1s","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"Why was lactose intolerence past weaning naturally selected in humans? We've all heard the story about lactose tolerance evolving with the domestication of the cow allowing for a more vitamin D rich diet in low sunlight area but why was lactose intolerance naturally selected for in the first place. People always argue that's it's because as we move onto solid foods we no longer need milk for nutrients which is fair enough but surely there's more to it than that. I mean wouldn't lactose tollerence have to be selected against for this to happen. Even though we stopped drinking milk past weaning I don't see why we wouldn't just retain the ability to create lactase unless there's a clear disadvantage to doing so. Are there any theory's on this because the idea that it happens simply because we stop drinking milk doesn't make evolutionary sense to me. Then again, I'm not an anthropologist.","c_root_id_A":"e82k9q5","c_root_id_B":"e82ax18","created_at_utc_A":1539967836,"created_at_utc_B":1539959969,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You don't have to select for intolerance in order to lose the ability to digest lactose. Same with a lot of other features that have been lost or become vestigial. If something isn't selected FOR to maintain it, it will usually be lost because mutations will creep in and not be selected against. Mutations happening is the passive, normal course of events, so there would have to be some evolutionary pressure to get rid of those mutations in order to maintain the trait. ​ But as someone else said, there is actually a good reason to lose the taste for milk, and that's because it is enjoyable to nurse--there is HUGE evolutionary pressure to enjoy nursing, because if not, then the infant will die. But there's got to be some kind of message to stop enjoying that or else you'll want to nurse all the time and that will negatively affect the mother and subsequent siblings' health.","human_ref_B":"Does lactase stop being produced after weaning or do we wean because lactase stops being produced? I assume it's the latter. So the advantage is to facilitate weaning, making it easier for mothers to nurse their newborns.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7867.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"nnovv4","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"What food rituals \/ ceremonies around the world do you find most particular? Do you know of any good resources for reference? I am curious to see the extent of how rituals and stories are embedded not just in the food but the way we consume it, when asked if I knew about any rituals around food I could only think of the Japanese tea and the French Ortolan!","c_root_id_A":"gzvxwdf","c_root_id_B":"gzw4v65","created_at_utc_A":1622307344,"created_at_utc_B":1622310906,"score_A":6,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Perhaps you could start with religious rituals that involve food? For example, in the United Methodist Church, there's specific guidelines around what can be used for bread and wine in communion, and how we partake in it. And once you start with religious rituals, it'll probably be easy to jump to secular rituals and holidays as well.","human_ref_B":"If you watch the various Anthony Bourdain series, you might notice that rituals and stories are extensively embedded in food and the way we consume it almost all the time. This is almost the very premise of the show. In an episode he quips something like *people don\u2019t eat what doesn\u2019t have meaning to them. *","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3562.0,"score_ratio":2.1666666667} +{"post_id":"1drppm","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"What kind of evidence exists to support the existence of pre-Clovis populations on the American continent? (x-post from r\/AskHistorians) Note: Someone suggested to post this here for a better answer - I wasn't sure which reddit was more appropriate, so here it is: I am doing a research paper on when the earliest people may have arrived on the continent, and sorting through all the material so far I don't quite understand what the general consensus is. It seems that it's been proved that Clovis societies weren't the first on the continent and now people are suggesting several waves of migrations and them being much earlier (15,000+ years ago) but there seems to be a lot of different estimates and proposals. I'm hoping to figure out at least three strong areas of evidence that support these theories (but I also want to address the opposition). I've been considering the mitochondrial DNA haplogroup research as well as the research into the linguistic families of spoken languages by Natives (which suggests the multiple waves of migrations). I still need another area of evidence, and I just generally want to know what's reliable or not. I've looked through the popular questions regarding this subject and there doesn't seem to be anything that goes this far back so I decided to ask. Thank you in advance!","c_root_id_A":"c9t86ng","c_root_id_B":"c9t7n8v","created_at_utc_A":1367812344,"created_at_utc_B":1367810727,"score_A":23,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The most widely accepted site so far is Monte Verde, at the southern end of Chile. Its main component is dated to 1,000 years before Clovis and is make up mainly of organic materials such as tent stakes, woven grass, mammoth hide, and food remains. An assembly of archaeologists visited the site (in the 90s I believe) and concluded it was valid. Its only real detractor was Stuart Fiedel (although David Meltzer more recently retracted his acceptance as well). This was a hugely important discovery because it showed that people not only got to the Americas before the opening of the Ice Free Corridor in Canada, but it also showed that people got to the southern end of South America by that time. Because of this site, most archaeologists now acknowledge that the first people to get to the Americas skirted along the west coast by boat down from Alaska. Here are some other archaeological sites with pretty good pre-Clovis evidence (none are as well accepted as Monte Verde, but they are still likely legit): Meadowcroft Rockshelter PA, Cactus Hill VA, Friedkin TX, Paisely Caves OR. Here are some that are more iffy and may not be pre-Clovis after all: Topper SC, Calico CA, Pedra Furada - Brazil. These are just off the top of my head, I haven't even gone into the pre-Clovis butchered mammoth remains found around the Great Lakes and in the Great Plains, and all the other less well known sites in South America. As for the genetic and lingustic evidence, I am an expert in this field and even I have a hard time keeping up with what the latest theory is (probably because I have my head buried in my own dissertation writing). It seems to change every couple months though. I can recommend a few books that provide a general overview of work this field though: David Meltzer's *First Peoples in a New World* is a good start. He's pretty much a Clovis-firster, so you'll get a healthy dose of skepticism after reading this book. It's very readable and sums up a lot of the past and present arguments that have been made for pre-Clovis in the Americas. Then there's *Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis*, which is a more scholarly collection of research articles dealing with various topics relating to pre-Clovis research. This book includes sections on skeletal and genetic evidence, but keep in mind more recent research has been done on these topics as well. There's nothing on Paisley Caves or Friedkin in here either, which is sad, but the pre-Clovis components of those sites weren't published until a few years after this book came out. Then for the heck of it, I might recommend *Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America's Clovis Culture*. This is the book on the Solutrean migration theory, which very few archaeologists accept, but I still think it's worth reading nonetheless. The hypothesis is well put together, and the circumstantial evidence behind it is interesting, so read it with an open but critical mind. One last thing, in the *SAA Archaeological Record*, my friend Amber Wheat conducted a survey of archaeologists' opinions on various aspects of the peopling of the Americas. You might find this very interesting if you're trying to find out what the consensus is. I can provide you with some additional sources for the archaeological sites I listed, as well as more recent research in genetics (I'm not sure about lingusticis, I haven't seen much on that subject lately), but I'm being lazy at the moment. But let me know if this is enough or if you need more, and I'll see what I can dredge up.","human_ref_B":"I actually took an entire class on the peopling of the Americas this semester. Everything on this topic is highly debated, especially the date that the first people might have gotten here. But just about everybody agrees that there were actually pre-Clovis peoples. Just taking a poll of the evidence out there, I would say around 20000-15000 BP is a good date range for entry into the continent, but again, nobody can really agree. My suggestion is to check out the Monte Verde and Meadowcroft sites if you haven't already. Pitblado's \"A Tale of Two Migrations: Reconciling Recent Biological and Archaeological Evidence for the Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas\" is a great recent literature review of the topic too.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1617.0,"score_ratio":5.75} +{"post_id":"jrnu8z","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Has a society ever worked without gender? What I mean is, if is there's any society that lived their life without dividing their people into the typical male\/female. Why is there a need to separate into male and female roles?","c_root_id_A":"gbvo8uc","c_root_id_B":"gbvitjn","created_at_utc_A":1605049993,"created_at_utc_B":1605047158,"score_A":68,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Not without constructs of gender that I know of, but there are plenty of societies who have more genders other than just \"male\" or \"female\". For instance, many Native American tribes historically have more than two genders. The Bugis of Sulawesi have 5 genders, the people of Juchit\u00e1n, Oaxaca, Mexico do not have traditional gender roles, the Mapuche shamans of Chile can fall into the roles of both male and female, the Hijras of India, and there are many more societies who don't use the western binary gender system.","human_ref_B":"It's important to define your terms before you can get a satisfactory answer to your question, otherwise all that'll likely happen is an argument over whether or not gender even exists. When you say gender what do you mean?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2835.0,"score_ratio":4.25} +{"post_id":"jrnu8z","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Has a society ever worked without gender? What I mean is, if is there's any society that lived their life without dividing their people into the typical male\/female. Why is there a need to separate into male and female roles?","c_root_id_A":"gbvitjn","c_root_id_B":"gbw2z1m","created_at_utc_A":1605047158,"created_at_utc_B":1605058020,"score_A":16,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"It's important to define your terms before you can get a satisfactory answer to your question, otherwise all that'll likely happen is an argument over whether or not gender even exists. When you say gender what do you mean?","human_ref_B":"well, roughly, because there is dimorphism in the species which lends itself to different sets of advantages, as well as the fact that only one biological sex can bear children","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10862.0,"score_ratio":1.0625} +{"post_id":"w3he4i","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"New methods in cultural anthropology (last 5 years)? I am a graduate TA in cultural anthropology. I am helping design a new course for the fall, and the professor wants me to search for new methods in cultural anthropology published in the last \\~5 years. It can be \"any method, but must have a specific focus, not a passing claim\" (her words). I'm going to dig into the scholarly search engines and consult my department librarian, but thought I might ask here, too! Thanks very much!","c_root_id_A":"igwxn4z","c_root_id_B":"igxz3ed","created_at_utc_A":1658323883,"created_at_utc_B":1658338631,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"A few possible leads here. Sort by date if you want, but reading some of the older ones may give you some ideas of methods that are more recent\/novel than whatever's covered in your other sources. https:\/\/www.annualreviews.org\/action\/doSearch?SeriesKey=anthro&AllField=Methods&ConceptID=","human_ref_B":"Digital ethnography for sure, it's been developing for a while but definitely getting a lot more traction and discussion in the COVID and post-COVID era","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14748.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} +{"post_id":"w3he4i","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"New methods in cultural anthropology (last 5 years)? I am a graduate TA in cultural anthropology. I am helping design a new course for the fall, and the professor wants me to search for new methods in cultural anthropology published in the last \\~5 years. It can be \"any method, but must have a specific focus, not a passing claim\" (her words). I'm going to dig into the scholarly search engines and consult my department librarian, but thought I might ask here, too! Thanks very much!","c_root_id_A":"igxz3ed","c_root_id_B":"igwzntk","created_at_utc_A":1658338631,"created_at_utc_B":1658324787,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Digital ethnography for sure, it's been developing for a while but definitely getting a lot more traction and discussion in the COVID and post-COVID era","human_ref_B":"If you search for AI and\/or big data in cultural anthropology those are fields that are relatively untapped and awash in new methods and developments especially machine learning as that gets better every year.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13844.0,"score_ratio":1.75} +{"post_id":"w3he4i","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"New methods in cultural anthropology (last 5 years)? I am a graduate TA in cultural anthropology. I am helping design a new course for the fall, and the professor wants me to search for new methods in cultural anthropology published in the last \\~5 years. It can be \"any method, but must have a specific focus, not a passing claim\" (her words). I'm going to dig into the scholarly search engines and consult my department librarian, but thought I might ask here, too! Thanks very much!","c_root_id_A":"igwurvm","c_root_id_B":"igxz3ed","created_at_utc_A":1658322567,"created_at_utc_B":1658338631,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Check out Helen Cara\u2019s \u201cCreative Research Methods\u201d and Truman and Springgay\u2019s \u201cWalking Methodologies in a More-than-human World\u201d","human_ref_B":"Digital ethnography for sure, it's been developing for a while but definitely getting a lot more traction and discussion in the COVID and post-COVID era","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16064.0,"score_ratio":3.5} +{"post_id":"w3he4i","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"New methods in cultural anthropology (last 5 years)? I am a graduate TA in cultural anthropology. I am helping design a new course for the fall, and the professor wants me to search for new methods in cultural anthropology published in the last \\~5 years. It can be \"any method, but must have a specific focus, not a passing claim\" (her words). I'm going to dig into the scholarly search engines and consult my department librarian, but thought I might ask here, too! Thanks very much!","c_root_id_A":"igwxn4z","c_root_id_B":"igwzntk","created_at_utc_A":1658323883,"created_at_utc_B":1658324787,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"A few possible leads here. Sort by date if you want, but reading some of the older ones may give you some ideas of methods that are more recent\/novel than whatever's covered in your other sources. https:\/\/www.annualreviews.org\/action\/doSearch?SeriesKey=anthro&AllField=Methods&ConceptID=","human_ref_B":"If you search for AI and\/or big data in cultural anthropology those are fields that are relatively untapped and awash in new methods and developments especially machine learning as that gets better every year.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":904.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} +{"post_id":"w3he4i","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"New methods in cultural anthropology (last 5 years)? I am a graduate TA in cultural anthropology. I am helping design a new course for the fall, and the professor wants me to search for new methods in cultural anthropology published in the last \\~5 years. It can be \"any method, but must have a specific focus, not a passing claim\" (her words). I'm going to dig into the scholarly search engines and consult my department librarian, but thought I might ask here, too! Thanks very much!","c_root_id_A":"igwxn4z","c_root_id_B":"igwurvm","created_at_utc_A":1658323883,"created_at_utc_B":1658322567,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"A few possible leads here. Sort by date if you want, but reading some of the older ones may give you some ideas of methods that are more recent\/novel than whatever's covered in your other sources. https:\/\/www.annualreviews.org\/action\/doSearch?SeriesKey=anthro&AllField=Methods&ConceptID=","human_ref_B":"Check out Helen Cara\u2019s \u201cCreative Research Methods\u201d and Truman and Springgay\u2019s \u201cWalking Methodologies in a More-than-human World\u201d","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1316.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"w3he4i","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"New methods in cultural anthropology (last 5 years)? I am a graduate TA in cultural anthropology. I am helping design a new course for the fall, and the professor wants me to search for new methods in cultural anthropology published in the last \\~5 years. It can be \"any method, but must have a specific focus, not a passing claim\" (her words). I'm going to dig into the scholarly search engines and consult my department librarian, but thought I might ask here, too! Thanks very much!","c_root_id_A":"igwurvm","c_root_id_B":"igwzntk","created_at_utc_A":1658322567,"created_at_utc_B":1658324787,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Check out Helen Cara\u2019s \u201cCreative Research Methods\u201d and Truman and Springgay\u2019s \u201cWalking Methodologies in a More-than-human World\u201d","human_ref_B":"If you search for AI and\/or big data in cultural anthropology those are fields that are relatively untapped and awash in new methods and developments especially machine learning as that gets better every year.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2220.0,"score_ratio":2.0} +{"post_id":"8m8ium","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"We need to start cross-posting the excellent information on this sub to other relevant, traffic-laden websites, i.e. Wikipedia We all know those names. Steven Pinker, Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris. *Or* maybe we thought we *knew* them too well, that we don't even bother Googling them to see how they are portrayed in popular websites. At least that's me, until one day I, in some twists of events, am directed to Peterson's Wikipedia page. Look at how glorious his Wikipedia profile is. An excellent academic and public intellectual (wow) who engages well with his audience. Smart and slick. The first thing that came to my mind--what the hell? Is this for real? Not even any slightest criticism on his work *or* even his statement was there. Even when controversy was mentioned, it is portrayed in such a way that seems to show, a man of science is defending his work against the emotional, biased people! That Wikipedia page feels really out of touch from excellent explanations I've seen in this sub, like the ones recently written by u\/RedHermit1982 and u\/anthrowill on Peterson. Naturally, I looked at the page's edit history. You will see how eager his crusaders are to defend their science hero against the attack of emotional people. Hell, look at the most recent edit. The dude cited a seemingly trustworthy website, but if we open his links, Peterson's name is only mentioned in passing--not to mention alongside being labeled as \"intellectual\" in those articles he is also labeled as \"controversial\" and put beside \"alt-right\". Way to nitpick the information. I'm not going to dwell on left\/right debates. My point is, bad science is propagated more passionately than good science. There are those people who crusade to defend their heroes by engaging in popular websites such as Wikipedia and dressing it up with bullshit, almost everyday. It's a collective effort. Just a few days ago u\/rpeg asked, \"How can we convince people that anthropological studies are important?\" We can start by intervening in such, say, public sphere. Anthropology ain't my field, but I learned a lot from you guys here. I try to do what I can each time I see bad science. But we all need to be in this together.","c_root_id_A":"dzlyafq","c_root_id_B":"dzlpit5","created_at_utc_A":1527342786,"created_at_utc_B":1527325365,"score_A":24,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"This is great!, so are you proposing like an Anthropology Wikipedia club, where we get together and edit articles?","human_ref_B":"Genually curious, what is wrong with Pinker?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17421.0,"score_ratio":2.4} +{"post_id":"8htr5q","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Advice on getting into an anthropology MA program? Hi everyone! Looking for some advice. My boyfriend just applied for MA programs in Anthropology and didn't get in. I'm hoping for any kind of advice or thoughts on research experiences he should pursue, jobs, etc. that could give him a boost up for next rounds of applications? We are both first gen students and, while I'm in a PhD program, it's for Psychology, so we are both a little clueless here. He wants to go into forensic anthropology, which I think is also sometimes called physical anthropology. Specifically in his career, he wants to be a CSI guy \\(sorry for the crude description, but I am not familiar with the anthro language, and he isn't here while I'm writing this to tell me the right title\\). He has some \\(\\~ a semester\\) research experience, but more in archeological anthropology, so it might not count for a lot. Graduated with a 3.2 GPA but a higher major GPA, I think. He has not taken the GRE. We would really like to bulk up his CV, but there are not a lot of anthropology related research assistant jobs. I do see some for biology and read that a biology background can be helpful when applying for grad school, but I want to make sure. Any help would be appreciated! Please let me know if there is more information I should provide.","c_root_id_A":"dymjhbl","c_root_id_B":"dymjpdn","created_at_utc_A":1525753227,"created_at_utc_B":1525753517,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I can't give much forensic-specific advice, but definitely big up any primary research he's been involved in. Forensic anthropology has borrowed some of its methods from archaeology, so this would be relevant experience. Take a look at the methods sections in a forensics or bioarchaeology text and emphasize any skills overlap with those. If he has any coursework or experience in biology, make sure to mention that. It's expected for biological anthropologists of any stripe. Also you have to take the GREs. I didn't even know there were schools that would let you apply without them.","human_ref_B":"It's been a four years since I looked at applying, but I would say this: It's very competitive. A lot of programs have 200-400 applications for 1-6 spots. If there's no applicants they like or the forensic anthropology professor doesn't want another grad student, they may take no one out of those 200-400 applicants. I know numerous people who applied. Those that got in had a near 4.0 GPA, went to conferences, had study abroad experience, stellar GRE scores, and research experience in biology or archaeology. I know one that got in with a 3.3 GPA, but it took 3(?) tries and two years working at a medical examiner's office + networking. She got into a program in the UK, where things are much less competitive. The forensic anthropologists at the place I went to undergrad said they only considered students with over a 3.5 GPA - if it was below that, your application would automatically be thrown out. I'd say your boyfriend's best bet would just be aggressive networking. Go to a bioarchaeology field school of some sort (or be a shovel bum). Many forensic anthropologists do bioarchaeology or work with archaeological samples, so it's great experience. Jobs are insanely competitive, so he'll probably just have to do some free work for people. Go to conferences and meet forensic anthropologists - AAFS is the big one I know people go to. E-mail forensic anthropologists at universities and meet with them. If one of them gets to know you well enough and likes you enough, you might get in regardless of a \"low\" GPA. A MA program is still incredibly competitive, but they take more students (4-6 as opposed to 1-3) each cohort, so he might have a slightly better shot. Otherwise, he should look at taking biology classes and cultural anthropology classes and getting straight A's to bring up that GPA and show he has the academic chops. The undergrad school I went to wanted people who had taken human biology classes and did well because you are expected to take certain classes with medical students (anatomy in particular). You will also then be able to TA classes for more high paying departments like Anatomy and Biology. And that makes you more marketable for academic jobs in the future. Many graduates of the PhD program at my undergrad school are now teaching in anatomy departments - where there's more stable and higher paying jobs.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":290.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} +{"post_id":"2jszig","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Is there any cultural difference between a soldier and a warrior? It seems that \"warrior\" is usually used in a tribal context, most often with preliterate European, African, or Amerindian tribes. \"Soldier\" is usually used for more settled peoples. Is there any kind of rule for this difference? It seems that the word warrior is associated with primitiveness. I've never heard of a Western European after 1500 be described as a warrior.","c_root_id_A":"clfdllc","c_root_id_B":"clevvqc","created_at_utc_A":1413874467,"created_at_utc_B":1413835010,"score_A":16,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"The two do have established differences in anthropology. You can read it in Sanders 1999, Anthropology of warriors, Encyclopedia of violence, peace & conflict vol. 3, 773-784. In my own work (state formation in early medieval Scandinavia) the distinction is pretty crucial as I am on the boundary between the two types. In J\u00f8rgensen 2001, Warriors, soldiers and conscripts, in Military aspects of the barbaricum in the Roman and Early Migration periods, Sanders' definitions are put into practice and shown to work. What follows is my paraphrasing of J\u00f8rgensen's article. In short, warriors are those whose vocation is warfare, whereas for soldiers, warfare is their profession. It follows that in contrast to soldiers, warriors fight for personal glory. They often, but not exclusively, fight as individuals rather than as disciplined formations. To warriors, warfare is a way of life and its values dominate much of their behaviour. In contrast to Roman and modern soldiers, warriors supply their own weapons. A medieval knight is still a warrior, even if he fought disciplined, because his life continued to be dominated by values of personal and military glory. It is not possible to make an absolute distinction between warriors and soldiers, and modern soldiers still retain some aspects of warriorhood. In modern soldiers, however, personal glory and individual prowess have become subordinated to military strategy and technical efficiency.","human_ref_B":"Soldier is a more specific term. Technically, a soldier serves in the Army. A warrior is a more general fighter (you can be a naval warrior) but warrior also implies experience or bravery. Both words are used metaphorically however with more overlap: a \"soldier for human rights\" is pretty much the same thing as a \"warrior for human rights\".","labels":1,"seconds_difference":39457.0,"score_ratio":2.2857142857} +{"post_id":"2jszig","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Is there any cultural difference between a soldier and a warrior? It seems that \"warrior\" is usually used in a tribal context, most often with preliterate European, African, or Amerindian tribes. \"Soldier\" is usually used for more settled peoples. Is there any kind of rule for this difference? It seems that the word warrior is associated with primitiveness. I've never heard of a Western European after 1500 be described as a warrior.","c_root_id_A":"cleywzn","c_root_id_B":"clfdllc","created_at_utc_A":1413840349,"created_at_utc_B":1413874467,"score_A":4,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"OP Can you provide some more context for your question? Is there a text you are referencing, a specific historical context, or a specific definition? Warrior and soldier are pretty vague in the way they are used in everyday conversation. For example, the US Marines often use the word warrior in their recruitment advertisements. In America the charity for helping wounded soldiers is called the Wounded Warriors project. So those terms aren't clearly defined as separate in our own everyday vernacular. Also a reminder to everyone that you need sources for your answers and those answers should be academic in nature. Otherwise, your responses will be removed per sub rules.","human_ref_B":"The two do have established differences in anthropology. You can read it in Sanders 1999, Anthropology of warriors, Encyclopedia of violence, peace & conflict vol. 3, 773-784. In my own work (state formation in early medieval Scandinavia) the distinction is pretty crucial as I am on the boundary between the two types. In J\u00f8rgensen 2001, Warriors, soldiers and conscripts, in Military aspects of the barbaricum in the Roman and Early Migration periods, Sanders' definitions are put into practice and shown to work. What follows is my paraphrasing of J\u00f8rgensen's article. In short, warriors are those whose vocation is warfare, whereas for soldiers, warfare is their profession. It follows that in contrast to soldiers, warriors fight for personal glory. They often, but not exclusively, fight as individuals rather than as disciplined formations. To warriors, warfare is a way of life and its values dominate much of their behaviour. In contrast to Roman and modern soldiers, warriors supply their own weapons. A medieval knight is still a warrior, even if he fought disciplined, because his life continued to be dominated by values of personal and military glory. It is not possible to make an absolute distinction between warriors and soldiers, and modern soldiers still retain some aspects of warriorhood. In modern soldiers, however, personal glory and individual prowess have become subordinated to military strategy and technical efficiency.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":34118.0,"score_ratio":4.0} +{"post_id":"8k0v1j","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Which books\/papers should I read to understand the current theories in Anthropology? Or about postmodernism in Anthropology? Also is there a good book that is about Anthropology's history?","c_root_id_A":"dz49zo1","c_root_id_B":"dz47gvk","created_at_utc_A":1526539241,"created_at_utc_B":1526534820,"score_A":8,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Thomas Hylland Eriksen's 'Small places, Large Issues' gives a good introductory overview of themes and theories in modern day anthropology and is widely read in European undergraduate courses. He's also co-authored a book on the history of anthropology as a discipline. Maybe this is more advanced than what you are looking for but current theories\/approaches that have been very influential and are trendy right now are Bruno Latour's Actor Network Theory (google his name and you'll find his books) and certain authors in what is being referred to as the 'Ontological turn'. They are connected in wanting to critique the concept of culture and the primacy given to human agency. Here's an explanation","human_ref_B":"For cultural theory generally, check out Jerry Moore's \"Visions of Culture.\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4421.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} +{"post_id":"8k0v1j","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Which books\/papers should I read to understand the current theories in Anthropology? Or about postmodernism in Anthropology? Also is there a good book that is about Anthropology's history?","c_root_id_A":"dz461bg","c_root_id_B":"dz49zo1","created_at_utc_A":1526532600,"created_at_utc_B":1526539241,"score_A":4,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"If you read spanish I would wholeheartedly recommend the work of Carlos Reynoso. Has critical historical works of major currents in Anthropology (and related fields like Cultural Studies) from last century until now as well as more epistemological works like anthropological developments in complexity theory and social network analysis. He's also really funny.","human_ref_B":"Thomas Hylland Eriksen's 'Small places, Large Issues' gives a good introductory overview of themes and theories in modern day anthropology and is widely read in European undergraduate courses. He's also co-authored a book on the history of anthropology as a discipline. Maybe this is more advanced than what you are looking for but current theories\/approaches that have been very influential and are trendy right now are Bruno Latour's Actor Network Theory (google his name and you'll find his books) and certain authors in what is being referred to as the 'Ontological turn'. They are connected in wanting to critique the concept of culture and the primacy given to human agency. Here's an explanation","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6641.0,"score_ratio":2.0} +{"post_id":"8k0v1j","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Which books\/papers should I read to understand the current theories in Anthropology? Or about postmodernism in Anthropology? Also is there a good book that is about Anthropology's history?","c_root_id_A":"dz47gvk","c_root_id_B":"dz461bg","created_at_utc_A":1526534820,"created_at_utc_B":1526532600,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"For cultural theory generally, check out Jerry Moore's \"Visions of Culture.\"","human_ref_B":"If you read spanish I would wholeheartedly recommend the work of Carlos Reynoso. Has critical historical works of major currents in Anthropology (and related fields like Cultural Studies) from last century until now as well as more epistemological works like anthropological developments in complexity theory and social network analysis. He's also really funny.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2220.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"6g6phx","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone tell me by these pictures which hominids these are? http:\/\/imgur.com\/a\/oDQjV To me the first one is homo heidelbergensis and the second picture is the homo erectus but I'm just not sure. Also I apologize for the less than decent pictures.","c_root_id_A":"dinyskf","c_root_id_B":"diott6z","created_at_utc_A":1496992002,"created_at_utc_B":1497038718,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Neither heidelbergensis nor erectus had saggital crests iirc.","human_ref_B":"The top one got us all. It's DNH 7 (P. robustus). Bottom is SK-48, also P. robustus. Oops, I see Chrythes got them earlier.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":46716.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"6g6phx","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone tell me by these pictures which hominids these are? http:\/\/imgur.com\/a\/oDQjV To me the first one is homo heidelbergensis and the second picture is the homo erectus but I'm just not sure. Also I apologize for the less than decent pictures.","c_root_id_A":"dio7mzh","c_root_id_B":"diott6z","created_at_utc_A":1497013333,"created_at_utc_B":1497038718,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"The second one has quite a prominent saggital crest + zygomatic flaring, which points towards the Paranthropus genus. Hard to judge size in a picture like this but to me, the jaw looks too large and robust to be from an australopithecine. I could be wrong though since A. boisei did have a similar crest. The lack of a crest on the first one, combined with the small brain case, prominent brow ridge and extremely sloping forehead does suggest an early australopithecine such as A. aferensis.","human_ref_B":"The top one got us all. It's DNH 7 (P. robustus). Bottom is SK-48, also P. robustus. Oops, I see Chrythes got them earlier.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25385.0,"score_ratio":1.2} +{"post_id":"6g6phx","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone tell me by these pictures which hominids these are? http:\/\/imgur.com\/a\/oDQjV To me the first one is homo heidelbergensis and the second picture is the homo erectus but I'm just not sure. Also I apologize for the less than decent pictures.","c_root_id_A":"diott6z","c_root_id_B":"dio58yn","created_at_utc_A":1497038718,"created_at_utc_B":1497009136,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The top one got us all. It's DNH 7 (P. robustus). Bottom is SK-48, also P. robustus. Oops, I see Chrythes got them earlier.","human_ref_B":"I think what you have there are *Au. afarensis* and *Au. robustus*. They are definitely both Australopithecines and the second is definitely a robust Australopithecine.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":29582.0,"score_ratio":2.0} +{"post_id":"6g6phx","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone tell me by these pictures which hominids these are? http:\/\/imgur.com\/a\/oDQjV To me the first one is homo heidelbergensis and the second picture is the homo erectus but I'm just not sure. Also I apologize for the less than decent pictures.","c_root_id_A":"dio7mzh","c_root_id_B":"dinyskf","created_at_utc_A":1497013333,"created_at_utc_B":1496992002,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The second one has quite a prominent saggital crest + zygomatic flaring, which points towards the Paranthropus genus. Hard to judge size in a picture like this but to me, the jaw looks too large and robust to be from an australopithecine. I could be wrong though since A. boisei did have a similar crest. The lack of a crest on the first one, combined with the small brain case, prominent brow ridge and extremely sloping forehead does suggest an early australopithecine such as A. aferensis.","human_ref_B":"Neither heidelbergensis nor erectus had saggital crests iirc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21331.0,"score_ratio":1.25} +{"post_id":"6g6phx","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone tell me by these pictures which hominids these are? http:\/\/imgur.com\/a\/oDQjV To me the first one is homo heidelbergensis and the second picture is the homo erectus but I'm just not sure. Also I apologize for the less than decent pictures.","c_root_id_A":"dio58yn","c_root_id_B":"dio7mzh","created_at_utc_A":1497009136,"created_at_utc_B":1497013333,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I think what you have there are *Au. afarensis* and *Au. robustus*. They are definitely both Australopithecines and the second is definitely a robust Australopithecine.","human_ref_B":"The second one has quite a prominent saggital crest + zygomatic flaring, which points towards the Paranthropus genus. Hard to judge size in a picture like this but to me, the jaw looks too large and robust to be from an australopithecine. I could be wrong though since A. boisei did have a similar crest. The lack of a crest on the first one, combined with the small brain case, prominent brow ridge and extremely sloping forehead does suggest an early australopithecine such as A. aferensis.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4197.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} +{"post_id":"3saady","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Can someone explain t be the value of soldiers? So I've recently been thinking about war and how in the modern UK and America soldiers are valued as heroic before the persons individual traits are considered. I have a few questions. Was there ever a society that did not value soldiers and in fact viewed it negatively as a profession? Secondly is there any definable point where idolization of soldiers became a thing? (sorry if my terminology is off. I'm not in any way an academic I'm just curious)","c_root_id_A":"cwvya2v","c_root_id_B":"cwvrf4f","created_at_utc_A":1447201309,"created_at_utc_B":1447190382,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This is *Tommy* by Rudyard Kipling, gives an idea how soldiers were viewed in England in the the late Victorian age, ~1890. May not be the best answer, but still a great read. Tommy: I went into a public-\u2018ouse to get a pint o\u2019 beer, The publican \u2018e up an\u2019 sez, \u201cWe serve no red-coats here.\u201d The girls be\u2019ind the bar they laughed an\u2019 giggled fit to die, I outs into the street again an\u2019 to myself sez I: O it\u2019s Tommy this, an\u2019 Tommy that, an\u2019 \u201cTommy, go away\u201d; But it\u2019s \u201cThank you, Mister Atkins\u201d, when the band begins to play, The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play, O it\u2019s \u201cThank you, Mister Atkins\u201d, when the band begins to play. * I went into a theatre as sober as could be, They gave a drunk civilian room, but \u2018adn\u2019t none for me; They sent me to the gallery or round the music-\u2018alls, But when it comes to fightin\u2019, Lord! they\u2019ll shove me in the stalls! For it\u2019s Tommy this, an\u2019 Tommy that, an\u2019 \u201cTommy, wait outside\u201d; But it\u2019s \u201cSpecial train for Atkins\u201d when the trooper\u2019s on the tide, The troopship\u2019s on the tide, my boys, the troopship\u2019s on the tide, O it\u2019s \u201cSpecial train for Atkins\u201d when the trooper\u2019s on the tide. Yes, makin\u2019 mock o\u2019 uniforms that guard you while you sleep Is cheaper than them uniforms, an\u2019 they\u2019re starvation cheap; An\u2019 hustlin\u2019 drunken soldiers when they\u2019re goin\u2019 large a bit Is five times better business than paradin\u2019 in full kit. Then it\u2019s Tommy this, an\u2019 Tommy that, an\u2019 \u201cTommy, \u2018ow\u2019s yer soul?\u201d But it\u2019s \u201cThin red line of \u2018eroes\u201d when the drums begin to roll, The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll, O it\u2019s \u201cThin red line of \u2018eroes\u201d when the drums begin to roll. We aren\u2019t no thin red \u2018eroes, nor we aren\u2019t no blackguards too, But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you; An\u2019 if sometimes our conduck isn\u2019t all your fancy paints, Why, single men in barricks don\u2019t grow into plaster saints; While it\u2019s Tommy this, an\u2019 Tommy that, an\u2019 \u201cTommy, fall be\u2019ind\u201d, But it\u2019s \u201cPlease to walk in front, sir\u201d, when there\u2019s trouble in the wind, There\u2019s trouble in the wind, my boys, there\u2019s trouble in the wind, O it\u2019s \u201cPlease to walk in front, sir\u201d, when there\u2019s trouble in the wind. You talk o\u2019 better food for us, an\u2019 schools, an\u2019 fires, an\u2019 all: We\u2019ll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational. Don\u2019t mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face The Widow\u2019s Uniform is not the soldier-man\u2019s disgrace. For it\u2019s Tommy this, an\u2019 Tommy that, an\u2019 \u201cChuck him out, the brute!\u201d But it\u2019s \u201cSaviour of \u2018is country\u201d when the guns begin to shoot; An\u2019 it\u2019s Tommy this, an\u2019 Tommy that, an\u2019 anything you please; An\u2019 Tommy ain\u2019t a bloomin\u2019 fool \u2014 you bet that Tommy sees! *","human_ref_B":"Well, I don't think it's ever been simple. Soldiers tend to be lauded from a safe distance in times of (popularly-supported) war, and distrusted or looked down on in times of peace or unpopular war. (Often for good reason; historically, unemployed mercenaries were pretty much indistinguishable from brigands.) Kipling's poem *Tommy* is possibly the most famous literary treatment of this double standard, but there are many others; look at the common soldiery in Shakespeare's *Henry V*, for example, most of whom are clowns or ruffians or both. The extreme lionization of the military seen in the US is very much a modern phenomenon, largely a reaction to the way (conscript) soldiers returning from Vietnam were received. You'd probably be better off asking about this on \/r\/askhistorians, though.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10927.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} +{"post_id":"3saady","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Can someone explain t be the value of soldiers? So I've recently been thinking about war and how in the modern UK and America soldiers are valued as heroic before the persons individual traits are considered. I have a few questions. Was there ever a society that did not value soldiers and in fact viewed it negatively as a profession? Secondly is there any definable point where idolization of soldiers became a thing? (sorry if my terminology is off. I'm not in any way an academic I'm just curious)","c_root_id_A":"cwvya2v","c_root_id_B":"cwvsz7l","created_at_utc_A":1447201309,"created_at_utc_B":1447192686,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This is *Tommy* by Rudyard Kipling, gives an idea how soldiers were viewed in England in the the late Victorian age, ~1890. May not be the best answer, but still a great read. Tommy: I went into a public-\u2018ouse to get a pint o\u2019 beer, The publican \u2018e up an\u2019 sez, \u201cWe serve no red-coats here.\u201d The girls be\u2019ind the bar they laughed an\u2019 giggled fit to die, I outs into the street again an\u2019 to myself sez I: O it\u2019s Tommy this, an\u2019 Tommy that, an\u2019 \u201cTommy, go away\u201d; But it\u2019s \u201cThank you, Mister Atkins\u201d, when the band begins to play, The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play, O it\u2019s \u201cThank you, Mister Atkins\u201d, when the band begins to play. * I went into a theatre as sober as could be, They gave a drunk civilian room, but \u2018adn\u2019t none for me; They sent me to the gallery or round the music-\u2018alls, But when it comes to fightin\u2019, Lord! they\u2019ll shove me in the stalls! For it\u2019s Tommy this, an\u2019 Tommy that, an\u2019 \u201cTommy, wait outside\u201d; But it\u2019s \u201cSpecial train for Atkins\u201d when the trooper\u2019s on the tide, The troopship\u2019s on the tide, my boys, the troopship\u2019s on the tide, O it\u2019s \u201cSpecial train for Atkins\u201d when the trooper\u2019s on the tide. Yes, makin\u2019 mock o\u2019 uniforms that guard you while you sleep Is cheaper than them uniforms, an\u2019 they\u2019re starvation cheap; An\u2019 hustlin\u2019 drunken soldiers when they\u2019re goin\u2019 large a bit Is five times better business than paradin\u2019 in full kit. Then it\u2019s Tommy this, an\u2019 Tommy that, an\u2019 \u201cTommy, \u2018ow\u2019s yer soul?\u201d But it\u2019s \u201cThin red line of \u2018eroes\u201d when the drums begin to roll, The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll, O it\u2019s \u201cThin red line of \u2018eroes\u201d when the drums begin to roll. We aren\u2019t no thin red \u2018eroes, nor we aren\u2019t no blackguards too, But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you; An\u2019 if sometimes our conduck isn\u2019t all your fancy paints, Why, single men in barricks don\u2019t grow into plaster saints; While it\u2019s Tommy this, an\u2019 Tommy that, an\u2019 \u201cTommy, fall be\u2019ind\u201d, But it\u2019s \u201cPlease to walk in front, sir\u201d, when there\u2019s trouble in the wind, There\u2019s trouble in the wind, my boys, there\u2019s trouble in the wind, O it\u2019s \u201cPlease to walk in front, sir\u201d, when there\u2019s trouble in the wind. You talk o\u2019 better food for us, an\u2019 schools, an\u2019 fires, an\u2019 all: We\u2019ll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational. Don\u2019t mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face The Widow\u2019s Uniform is not the soldier-man\u2019s disgrace. For it\u2019s Tommy this, an\u2019 Tommy that, an\u2019 \u201cChuck him out, the brute!\u201d But it\u2019s \u201cSaviour of \u2018is country\u201d when the guns begin to shoot; An\u2019 it\u2019s Tommy this, an\u2019 Tommy that, an\u2019 anything you please; An\u2019 Tommy ain\u2019t a bloomin\u2019 fool \u2014 you bet that Tommy sees! *","human_ref_B":">Was there ever a society that did not value soldiers and in fact viewed it negatively as a profession? The Chinese--the cultural elite, anyway--looked down on soldiers quite a bit. The saying goes, \"You don't use good steel to make a nail, or a good man to make a soldier.\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8623.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} +{"post_id":"3saady","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Can someone explain t be the value of soldiers? So I've recently been thinking about war and how in the modern UK and America soldiers are valued as heroic before the persons individual traits are considered. I have a few questions. Was there ever a society that did not value soldiers and in fact viewed it negatively as a profession? Secondly is there any definable point where idolization of soldiers became a thing? (sorry if my terminology is off. I'm not in any way an academic I'm just curious)","c_root_id_A":"cwvya2v","c_root_id_B":"cwvupb4","created_at_utc_A":1447201309,"created_at_utc_B":1447195360,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This is *Tommy* by Rudyard Kipling, gives an idea how soldiers were viewed in England in the the late Victorian age, ~1890. May not be the best answer, but still a great read. Tommy: I went into a public-\u2018ouse to get a pint o\u2019 beer, The publican \u2018e up an\u2019 sez, \u201cWe serve no red-coats here.\u201d The girls be\u2019ind the bar they laughed an\u2019 giggled fit to die, I outs into the street again an\u2019 to myself sez I: O it\u2019s Tommy this, an\u2019 Tommy that, an\u2019 \u201cTommy, go away\u201d; But it\u2019s \u201cThank you, Mister Atkins\u201d, when the band begins to play, The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play, O it\u2019s \u201cThank you, Mister Atkins\u201d, when the band begins to play. * I went into a theatre as sober as could be, They gave a drunk civilian room, but \u2018adn\u2019t none for me; They sent me to the gallery or round the music-\u2018alls, But when it comes to fightin\u2019, Lord! they\u2019ll shove me in the stalls! For it\u2019s Tommy this, an\u2019 Tommy that, an\u2019 \u201cTommy, wait outside\u201d; But it\u2019s \u201cSpecial train for Atkins\u201d when the trooper\u2019s on the tide, The troopship\u2019s on the tide, my boys, the troopship\u2019s on the tide, O it\u2019s \u201cSpecial train for Atkins\u201d when the trooper\u2019s on the tide. Yes, makin\u2019 mock o\u2019 uniforms that guard you while you sleep Is cheaper than them uniforms, an\u2019 they\u2019re starvation cheap; An\u2019 hustlin\u2019 drunken soldiers when they\u2019re goin\u2019 large a bit Is five times better business than paradin\u2019 in full kit. Then it\u2019s Tommy this, an\u2019 Tommy that, an\u2019 \u201cTommy, \u2018ow\u2019s yer soul?\u201d But it\u2019s \u201cThin red line of \u2018eroes\u201d when the drums begin to roll, The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll, O it\u2019s \u201cThin red line of \u2018eroes\u201d when the drums begin to roll. We aren\u2019t no thin red \u2018eroes, nor we aren\u2019t no blackguards too, But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you; An\u2019 if sometimes our conduck isn\u2019t all your fancy paints, Why, single men in barricks don\u2019t grow into plaster saints; While it\u2019s Tommy this, an\u2019 Tommy that, an\u2019 \u201cTommy, fall be\u2019ind\u201d, But it\u2019s \u201cPlease to walk in front, sir\u201d, when there\u2019s trouble in the wind, There\u2019s trouble in the wind, my boys, there\u2019s trouble in the wind, O it\u2019s \u201cPlease to walk in front, sir\u201d, when there\u2019s trouble in the wind. You talk o\u2019 better food for us, an\u2019 schools, an\u2019 fires, an\u2019 all: We\u2019ll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational. Don\u2019t mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face The Widow\u2019s Uniform is not the soldier-man\u2019s disgrace. For it\u2019s Tommy this, an\u2019 Tommy that, an\u2019 \u201cChuck him out, the brute!\u201d But it\u2019s \u201cSaviour of \u2018is country\u201d when the guns begin to shoot; An\u2019 it\u2019s Tommy this, an\u2019 Tommy that, an\u2019 anything you please; An\u2019 Tommy ain\u2019t a bloomin\u2019 fool \u2014 you bet that Tommy sees! *","human_ref_B":"Early America, at least in some part. Founders like Madison were against a standing army, viewing it as a threat, and you'll note that the 3rd amendment is a blanket prohibition rather than something like the 5th where there's a compensation scheme. It's important to remember too that the way in which what we could call an army looks like and is composed of varies extensively throughout time and place, from citizen militias that spring into being for 3 day wars to mercenary bands to forcibly levied mobs to sacred orders, so how the public perceives any individual participant is going to vary wildly.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5949.0,"score_ratio":2.5} +{"post_id":"8tv0uk","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Has anyone read Against the Grain? Is it trustworthy information, or a unfounded fringe theory? I am wondering if anyone has read the book Against the Grain by James C Scott. Does anyone know if the author is reliable and reputable?","c_root_id_A":"e1an52l","c_root_id_B":"e1aru1j","created_at_utc_A":1529975899,"created_at_utc_B":1529981203,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I have not read him, so take my comment with a grain (ha-ha, ha-ha) of salt: Here is a link to an archeologist who really does not like him based on his theoretical viewpoints. Despite that, I think the author can be very interesting, especially to me, as a political scientist. Overall, anthropology is very argumentative in the sense that a lot of different anthropologists make their cases. Other than the link above, I would check reviews of his monographs in reputable journals.","human_ref_B":"As a PhD student in history at a major research university, I was assigned to read Scott's Seeing Like a State on two occasions by reputable professors. You'll find plenty of people who disagree with his conclusions, but I don't think he's regarded as a hack. Can't speak to the book you mentioned in particular though.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5304.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} +{"post_id":"e309nk","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Anthropology on ghost and apparition and its relation to physical or sensuous experience on the body? Got recommended Tanya Luhrmann's work about evangelical's bodily experience of Jesus. Feeling like being touched by Jesus, whispered by Jesus, and so on. Truly fascinating. It reminds me of my own experience in where I live. Not about God, but ghost and supernatural apparition. My culture has it that you can experience ghosts just like in horror movies. They can touch you, can possess you. If you're having sleeping paralysis it's probable that you've witnessed something you shouldn't have seen. If you have a heavy weight on shoulders it's probable a ghost has been haunting you. I live in Malaysia btw but I've heard similar stories from friends both in Europe and other Asian countries. Those who believe in supernatural stuff anyway. It's all bodily experiences. Is there any anthropological work about it?","c_root_id_A":"f92757m","c_root_id_B":"f90cbsi","created_at_utc_A":1575015758,"created_at_utc_B":1574970473,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Absolutely! There are whole libraries of anthropological literature on this very subject. I'd recommend looking up Zar female spirit possession to see how culture can influence the ways people experience similar phenomena. I'd also recommend *The Relationship Between Witchcraft Beliefs and Psychosomatic Illness* by Marlene Dobkin de Rios in the book \"Anthropology and Mental Health: Setting a New Course\" for a further understanding of how culture, religion, and spirituality can influence our physical bodies.","human_ref_B":"I'm still not finished with this book, but maybe \"Monster Anthropology in Australasia and Beyond\", edited by Y. Musharbash and G. H. Presterudstuen.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":45285.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} +{"post_id":"e309nk","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Anthropology on ghost and apparition and its relation to physical or sensuous experience on the body? Got recommended Tanya Luhrmann's work about evangelical's bodily experience of Jesus. Feeling like being touched by Jesus, whispered by Jesus, and so on. Truly fascinating. It reminds me of my own experience in where I live. Not about God, but ghost and supernatural apparition. My culture has it that you can experience ghosts just like in horror movies. They can touch you, can possess you. If you're having sleeping paralysis it's probable that you've witnessed something you shouldn't have seen. If you have a heavy weight on shoulders it's probable a ghost has been haunting you. I live in Malaysia btw but I've heard similar stories from friends both in Europe and other Asian countries. Those who believe in supernatural stuff anyway. It's all bodily experiences. Is there any anthropological work about it?","c_root_id_A":"f923em2","c_root_id_B":"f92757m","created_at_utc_A":1575010864,"created_at_utc_B":1575015758,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Man and His Symbols by Carl Jung touches on this some.","human_ref_B":"Absolutely! There are whole libraries of anthropological literature on this very subject. I'd recommend looking up Zar female spirit possession to see how culture can influence the ways people experience similar phenomena. I'd also recommend *The Relationship Between Witchcraft Beliefs and Psychosomatic Illness* by Marlene Dobkin de Rios in the book \"Anthropology and Mental Health: Setting a New Course\" for a further understanding of how culture, religion, and spirituality can influence our physical bodies.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4894.0,"score_ratio":2.5} +{"post_id":"48hu2p","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"What makes an 18 year old an adult? In a recent lecture, a brilliant university professor of mine stated that the \"18 = adult\" convention is completely made up. She instead suggested that humans develop the ability to act as responsible, rational adults as their prefrontal cortex develops, starting at puberty and ending around the age of 25. When and why was 18 determined to be the age of \"adulthood\"?","c_root_id_A":"d0jwyjv","c_root_id_B":"d0jv9h4","created_at_utc_A":1456870425,"created_at_utc_B":1456868155,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"A classic historical text on the subject which goes some way to answering your question is philippe aries' 'centuries of childhood'. In it, he argues that the social practice of starkly distinguishing between a person being a child or an adult did not emerge until early modernity. 'Childhood' as a salient category of person didn't exist, and life courses were divided according to significant rituals, namely confirmation and marriage.","human_ref_B":"The State. Why? Taxes, military conscription, legal accountability of it's citizenry, etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2270.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} +{"post_id":"1v421v","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"What would be the difference: An archaeologist spends years researching, searching, and the finally makes a legendary discovery. Only one problem, they don't have a PhD. What happens to the person who discovered it? Are there literally no opportunities for people without Masters or PhD's to contribute to, and be a part of renowned archaeological teams and\/or finds? Even if they do everything right, and have a lot of experience?","c_root_id_A":"ceoi69p","c_root_id_B":"ceoimd0","created_at_utc_A":1389629825,"created_at_utc_B":1389630993,"score_A":5,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"There are lots of volunteering programs and ways to contribute without a masters or phd. That said paying jobs do not really exist. The Richard the 3rd discovery came from a group of people with some strange theory about where he would be located and teaming up with the archaeology unit from Leeds (i think) managed to make their case and start a dig. Moreover it is usually hard for digs to happen without contributions from the local community or offering local people to come and partake in digging their collective history. Making a legendary discovery and so on, personally I would be very resentful if I was ever digging as a volunteer and I happened to come across an artifact and was removed from unearthing it so someone else could. If someone with a PHD had to supervise me fine, but I am part of the team and there for the ups, downs, and so on. But each site is different and my last experience had few finds.","human_ref_B":"You can be a part of the dig but without a PhD you won't be leading it. As a high school student I used to volunteer with the regional archaeologist and clean artifacts & plot the finds on maps. I didn't take the archaeology route in college, but many friends did. In my MA program, my archaeology friends often used undergrads as part of their dig crew. But, again, without a graduate degree you aren't going to ever be more than a shovel bum. Part of this is due to who can get the grants, access, and credibility. But also recognize that the most important part of archaeology happens in the interpretation - which occurs afterwards in the lab. It can take years and years to fully interpret a single dig and then you'd want to publish those findings in peer reviewed journals & write grants for the next dig. But if you just want to volunteer to dig and not be the managing team that organizes and later interprets there are certainly opportunities for people without graduate degrees. Edit: check out this site for volunteer fieldwork opportunities. You might also contact your local university's archaeology department to just put your name in there for local digs. Not all professors are as friendly as the guy who let high school me clean pottery shards, but they might at least be able to direct you to a chatty grad student. But to answer your question in the title: depends. There are some amateurs out there who do try to find sites on their own. The most (in)famous was Heinrich Schliemann who discovered Troy. He was very wealthy and spent a lot of his money and time to make it happen. To his credit he proved that the site wasn't just a myth. But he also liked to give his wife the jewelry he found there so she could play dress-up. And he destroyed a lot of the site during his dig. Often the most important finds in a dig aren't the pretty flashy ones. And without context the finds don't mean as much. You need the matrix intact and you need to see what was found around it so you can understand if there was a relationship to the objects & space. Someone who isn't trained on proper dig techniques (and whose team isn't trained) can damage the site permanently. Preserving finds is another issue that came up - some items were very delicate and not properly cared for by his team. And here lies the problem. Amateur archaeologists can be useful for helping find sites. But if they dig on their own they often do not know how to do so without destroying important evidence. They may not know what is an important find for the field (i.e. they ignore & possibly destroy something that could be groundbreaking but salvage a pretty pot that tells us nothing new.) And they may not donate or share their finds meaning that site's information is now lost forever to the field of archaeology. Some archaeologists are trying to form relationships with amateur archaeologists so that they can help train & collaborate with them. But most archaeologists see amateurs as at best well meaning destroyers of sites and at worst grave robbers.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1168.0,"score_ratio":3.0} +{"post_id":"dx3f5b","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"How long have people understood the connection between sex and children? A cursory Google search only yielded a couple of brief articles that did not really answer the question. Does anyone here have more insight?","c_root_id_A":"f7odzzc","c_root_id_B":"f7p5moy","created_at_utc_A":1573925873,"created_at_utc_B":1573942752,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Did you see this article? https:\/\/slate.com\/technology\/2013\/01\/when-did-humans-realize-sex-makes-babies-evolution-of-reproductive-consciousness-of-the-cause-of-pregnancy.html","human_ref_B":"I would argue we have known for as long as we've been human. I tend to think cultural elaborations that explain babies outside of penile-vaginal intercourse are meant to explain some part of the process that people could not see, but that they knew the intercourse was a necessary ingredient. Humans living outdoors must have had plenty of experience seeing other animals mate, and they must have noticed that women who did not have intercourse did not have offspring. Plus they knew where the baby came from and that were really only a couple of other body parts that typically came into contact with a women's genitals. They also would have been aware that ejaculation produced sperm. Think of all the other things we figured out: (1) how to take a shapeless rock and turn it into a flat surface by knocking it in just the right spot that is not visible to the naked eye; (2) the path of animal migrations; (3) where to go at what time in the year to find certain nuts and berries; (4) how to carry seeds to encourage plants to grow in abundance next year.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16879.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"bk8f1l","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why did Mayans forget how to read thier writing? I have read Mayan glyph writing was finally deciphered in the 19th-20th century but there are many Mayans still here today, why did they forget how to read thier writing? They still speak the language but forgot how to read the glyphs?","c_root_id_A":"emepk7w","c_root_id_B":"emesuwg","created_at_utc_A":1556890286,"created_at_utc_B":1556892590,"score_A":54,"score_B":111,"human_ref_A":"Language changes and evolves over time. How many English-speakers could read early middle English? >Forr\u00ferihht anan se time comm \u00featt ure Drihhtin wollde ben borenn i \u00feiss middell\u00e6rd forr all mannkinne nede he ch\u00e6s himm sone kinnessmenn all swillke summ he wollde and wh\u00e6r he wollde borenn ben he ch\u00e6s all att hiss wille. Which has been translated to modern English as: >As soon as the time came that our Lord wanted be born in this middle-earth for all mankind sake, at once He chose kinsmen for Himself, all just as he wanted, and He decided that He would be born exactly where He wished. That's just from the twelfth century Some of the Mayan script comes from as far back as the third century BCE.","human_ref_B":"Even when glyph usage was widely used, we don't have much evidence anyone but scribes and other elites used it extensively, as popular literature or even media was not a thing (it was mainly used in accounts of the elite's deeds and religious texts). However, even in this context, the early Catholic church was very much opposed to it as a source of potential competition in terms of sovereignty, and banned it, destroying the majority of existing texts and leaving just a handful of examples of non-stone glyph \"books\" commonly referred to as \"codices\".","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2304.0,"score_ratio":2.0555555556} +{"post_id":"bk8f1l","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why did Mayans forget how to read thier writing? I have read Mayan glyph writing was finally deciphered in the 19th-20th century but there are many Mayans still here today, why did they forget how to read thier writing? They still speak the language but forgot how to read the glyphs?","c_root_id_A":"emfakxt","c_root_id_B":"emfjld9","created_at_utc_A":1556904067,"created_at_utc_B":1556910115,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Didn\u2019t the Spanish destroy most of the Mayan texts? Considering only a fraction of the Mayan population was probably literate (not unlike Europe at the time) I\u2019d assume after a few generations under tyrannical Spanish rule that most of that knowledge would be lost.","human_ref_B":"When a colonial force forbids the teaching of the indigenous language of the area, knowledge is lost. Same with many of the endangered or extinct indigenous languages throughout the Americas.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6048.0,"score_ratio":1.2} +{"post_id":"bk8f1l","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why did Mayans forget how to read thier writing? I have read Mayan glyph writing was finally deciphered in the 19th-20th century but there are many Mayans still here today, why did they forget how to read thier writing? They still speak the language but forgot how to read the glyphs?","c_root_id_A":"emfakxt","c_root_id_B":"emf8d57","created_at_utc_A":1556904067,"created_at_utc_B":1556902576,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Didn\u2019t the Spanish destroy most of the Mayan texts? Considering only a fraction of the Mayan population was probably literate (not unlike Europe at the time) I\u2019d assume after a few generations under tyrannical Spanish rule that most of that knowledge would be lost.","human_ref_B":"I don't know, maybe they just got lazy and stopped doing their homework. Or maybe the Spaniards imposed a horrific oppression for generations, in which the higher structures of the Maya society were mainly targeted while uneducated farmers were left alone as long as they gave up their culture, converted to Christianity and worked hard under slave-like conditions for their new masters.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1491.0,"score_ratio":1.25} +{"post_id":"bk8f1l","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why did Mayans forget how to read thier writing? I have read Mayan glyph writing was finally deciphered in the 19th-20th century but there are many Mayans still here today, why did they forget how to read thier writing? They still speak the language but forgot how to read the glyphs?","c_root_id_A":"emfjld9","c_root_id_B":"emf8d57","created_at_utc_A":1556910115,"created_at_utc_B":1556902576,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"When a colonial force forbids the teaching of the indigenous language of the area, knowledge is lost. Same with many of the endangered or extinct indigenous languages throughout the Americas.","human_ref_B":"I don't know, maybe they just got lazy and stopped doing their homework. Or maybe the Spaniards imposed a horrific oppression for generations, in which the higher structures of the Maya society were mainly targeted while uneducated farmers were left alone as long as they gave up their culture, converted to Christianity and worked hard under slave-like conditions for their new masters.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7539.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"bk8f1l","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why did Mayans forget how to read thier writing? I have read Mayan glyph writing was finally deciphered in the 19th-20th century but there are many Mayans still here today, why did they forget how to read thier writing? They still speak the language but forgot how to read the glyphs?","c_root_id_A":"emfreo1","c_root_id_B":"emg8j3w","created_at_utc_A":1556915190,"created_at_utc_B":1556928155,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"If you're interested in this kind of thing and also like historical fiction, you might enjoy Aztec, by Gary Jennings. Let me repeat that it's historical fiction and I'm in no way suggesting it's a completely accurate depiction of how they lived, but it's close enough in most aspects and a fun read. It can be a little graphic, so be warned. I don't want to divulge any spoilers other than to say glyph writing is discussed in great detail as well as potential communication between natives and representatives of the Catholic church.","human_ref_B":"The ancient Greeks\/Hellenes forgot how to write their own language for a few hundred years too.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12965.0,"score_ratio":2.0} +{"post_id":"2parb5","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"So, why should I get involved in a career in anthropology? I'm in college right now trying to figure out life, and despite what I thought the class would be like, I really enjoy cultural anthropology and learning about the diversity of human life. So I wanted to know, what are some pros and cons of working in anthropology?","c_root_id_A":"cmvatmt","c_root_id_B":"cmvdpd0","created_at_utc_A":1418624170,"created_at_utc_B":1418635091,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Probably not the best idea. That degree has bad employment figures.","human_ref_B":"What others say may be true, however anthropology gives you a powerful advantage over others in jobs that has to do with humans... Almost all industries. The catch is that you have to learn a secondary skill to qualify in the industry you're interested in. You get job, then you bring your anthropology tools with you.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10921.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} +{"post_id":"1leprw","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"How does food security of a hunter-gatherer society compares with that of a modern one? Compared to contemporary modern societies, how did a hunter-gather society compare in terms of food security? The HG in question is any society that existed before the invention of pottery. Since, its almost impossible to deduce about a society which had no records, comparison with HGs in modern times would work fine too.","c_root_id_A":"cbz0fv5","c_root_id_B":"cbyrroj","created_at_utc_A":1377956559,"created_at_utc_B":1377911136,"score_A":11,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"For the Hadza at least. Food is often constant, but never fantastic (e.g. Lots of berries and Baobab without enough meat). I'm out with the Hadza now and they contanstantly pester us for food... I don't know what that tells you. In the long term, many of them are quite short which is a fair indication of malnutrition, but almost all in my current sample have decent blood hemoglobin levels, which suggests they are at least getting enough iron. Would write more, but will not see a computer or an Internet connection for another two weeks!","human_ref_B":"Well, one of the last hunter gatherer societies in Botswana have had a rough time the last 100 years or so. They are the San\/Bushmen. Imagine a group of 100% free Native Americans roaming around evading the Army for years and years and hiding in the bush. That's the San. Many San have been forced onto reservations and forced in Bantu\/Western culture because the Botswanan government feels that all of their people, including the Bushmen, should be educated. So instead of asking the Bushmen to build their own schools or come to Bantu ones, the government just rips them out of the Bush without any regard for their previous homes, culture, etc. Now there are only ~300 truly free Bushmen left roaming around in the middle of Botswana playing hide and seek like champions. Bascially, hunter-gatherer societies and modern societies do not get along well at all. Not that some reservations can be good, but true HGs and true modern societies are antithetical. There are some great reservations for the San and some great ones here in America, but for every good one there are tons of shitty ones along with it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":45423.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333} +{"post_id":"3uykkq","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Is there an evolutionary basis for the feeling of guilt? I wonder if way back there might have been a benefit to feeling guilt. Not an individual benefit but rather toward the greater good of a group. For example, after eating all the fruits available in a tree and leaving the rest of the group hungry, guilt may ensure that the person will think twice about doing it again (so more food for everyone else next time around). Or once language was established, saying 'Your Neanderthal look is so outdated Phoebe' could generate a huge conflict within a group and potentially divide\/weaken it. So feeling guilty would again make people less likely to express their every thought and jeopardize the survival of the group. What I'm saying is probably completely crazy but I often wonder how 'complex' feelings emerged and helped us adapt somehow.","c_root_id_A":"cxjcm7c","c_root_id_B":"cxjbwby","created_at_utc_A":1448993659,"created_at_utc_B":1448992640,"score_A":10,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"What you're suggesting is basically group level selection, or cultural group selection, whereby groups that evolve a feeling of guilt (either biologically or culturally) might outcompete groups with no such feelings. Although this may have played a small part, there's a better answer: Evolving feelings like guilt is actually a benefit to the individual. Although it seems like you're getting a free lunch by eating all of the fruit without sharing any, your long-term survival depends on the goodwill of the people in your group, and humans are constantly paying attention to and judging behavior of other humans. If you are seen as a non-cooperator, you face being ostracized by your tribe, making it nearly impossible to survive and reproduce. Our unique ability to retain large amounts of reputational information about other people means that it is advantageous, even at the individual level, to cooperate with the people in your group and to feel bad if you've \"cheated\".","human_ref_B":"We're social creatures and when you do something that weakens or causes pain to another tribal member it can come back around and ultimately be something unfortunate to you. Not to mention, people who may've not felt much guilt or empathy towards others might've been outcast from the group therefore making it very hard to survive and reproduce, if at all.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1019.0,"score_ratio":5.0} +{"post_id":"1j5f3g","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"So I just received a degree in Anthropology... Now what? I just graduated from university in the US with a degree in anthro. Now the great job search begins and I wanted to see what you guys have and are doing currently! My school was big on Sociocultural. I have had a few TA's tell me I should do grad school, but I am not 100 percent certain that I want to do academics. Hope this question is okay for this sub!","c_root_id_A":"cbbcss4","c_root_id_B":"cbbc5o6","created_at_utc_A":1374930069,"created_at_utc_B":1374925660,"score_A":16,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"As a (very happy) PhD student in sociocultural anthro, I would say don't go to gradschool for anthropology unless you've 1. Worked in the \"real world\" for a while and 2. Are more than 100% certain that you want a life-long career in academia and 3. You have a specific project in mind to apply with. If you got a Liberal Arts education you should know it isn't about job training; it's about personal enrichment that will help you excel professionally but also humanely, politically, spiritually, intellectually etc. But what a lot of people with degrees in non-vocational subjects don't realize (including, at one point, me!) is that you need to combine this with job experience to get anywhere. Temping is a good way to start. Dream jobs just don't materialize based on what you major was in college, but a degree + work experience will increase your chances. As for the MA, I would say you'd have to be crazy to pay for a two years program in sociocultural anthropology, but maybe I'm wrong.","human_ref_B":"Go to grad school. :) I hate to say it, but my undergrad in Anthro (archaeology concentration) was just about useless to get a job that pays anything remotely worth a damn. It wasn't until I got my MA that I was able to find supervisory jobs and the like. Before the MA, I found jobs in the retail service sector that paid better than jobs suitable for those with anthro undergrads.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4409.0,"score_ratio":8.0} +{"post_id":"1j5f3g","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"So I just received a degree in Anthropology... Now what? I just graduated from university in the US with a degree in anthro. Now the great job search begins and I wanted to see what you guys have and are doing currently! My school was big on Sociocultural. I have had a few TA's tell me I should do grad school, but I am not 100 percent certain that I want to do academics. Hope this question is okay for this sub!","c_root_id_A":"cbbc5o6","c_root_id_B":"cbbda7g","created_at_utc_A":1374925660,"created_at_utc_B":1374932806,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Go to grad school. :) I hate to say it, but my undergrad in Anthro (archaeology concentration) was just about useless to get a job that pays anything remotely worth a damn. It wasn't until I got my MA that I was able to find supervisory jobs and the like. Before the MA, I found jobs in the retail service sector that paid better than jobs suitable for those with anthro undergrads.","human_ref_B":"Now you plan the world revolution.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7146.0,"score_ratio":2.5} +{"post_id":"1j5f3g","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"So I just received a degree in Anthropology... Now what? I just graduated from university in the US with a degree in anthro. Now the great job search begins and I wanted to see what you guys have and are doing currently! My school was big on Sociocultural. I have had a few TA's tell me I should do grad school, but I am not 100 percent certain that I want to do academics. Hope this question is okay for this sub!","c_root_id_A":"cbbc5o6","c_root_id_B":"cbbf6q4","created_at_utc_A":1374925660,"created_at_utc_B":1374940826,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Go to grad school. :) I hate to say it, but my undergrad in Anthro (archaeology concentration) was just about useless to get a job that pays anything remotely worth a damn. It wasn't until I got my MA that I was able to find supervisory jobs and the like. Before the MA, I found jobs in the retail service sector that paid better than jobs suitable for those with anthro undergrads.","human_ref_B":"I agree with \/u\/crunkjuicer that grad school isn't right for everyone and you should get some real world experience before diving in. In the US a socio cultural PhD takes anywhere from 6-10 years. That is a long fucking time! I wrote up something a while back for someone with suggestions about how to turn your BA into a positive on your resume. I've worked in the \"real world\" in a variety of office jobs and usually do very well and get promoted up in part (I think) because of my anthropology education. I can share those suggestions if you want. If you do go the grad school route we can all give you suggestions for that too when the time is right. Definitely don't pay for a MA unless it is more of an applied MA with a direct and obvious job position that it is training you to do.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15166.0,"score_ratio":2.0} +{"post_id":"1j5f3g","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"So I just received a degree in Anthropology... Now what? I just graduated from university in the US with a degree in anthro. Now the great job search begins and I wanted to see what you guys have and are doing currently! My school was big on Sociocultural. I have had a few TA's tell me I should do grad school, but I am not 100 percent certain that I want to do academics. Hope this question is okay for this sub!","c_root_id_A":"cbbf6q4","c_root_id_B":"cbbdgpw","created_at_utc_A":1374940826,"created_at_utc_B":1374933725,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I agree with \/u\/crunkjuicer that grad school isn't right for everyone and you should get some real world experience before diving in. In the US a socio cultural PhD takes anywhere from 6-10 years. That is a long fucking time! I wrote up something a while back for someone with suggestions about how to turn your BA into a positive on your resume. I've worked in the \"real world\" in a variety of office jobs and usually do very well and get promoted up in part (I think) because of my anthropology education. I can share those suggestions if you want. If you do go the grad school route we can all give you suggestions for that too when the time is right. Definitely don't pay for a MA unless it is more of an applied MA with a direct and obvious job position that it is training you to do.","human_ref_B":"I went to law school after I did my undergrad and masters in sociocultural. It was the right decision for me and might be worth considering. Other people go into advertising. There isn't a tonne else out there for you though without doing a bit more education.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7101.0,"score_ratio":2.0} +{"post_id":"1j5f3g","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"So I just received a degree in Anthropology... Now what? I just graduated from university in the US with a degree in anthro. Now the great job search begins and I wanted to see what you guys have and are doing currently! My school was big on Sociocultural. I have had a few TA's tell me I should do grad school, but I am not 100 percent certain that I want to do academics. Hope this question is okay for this sub!","c_root_id_A":"cbbf6q4","c_root_id_B":"cbbelgx","created_at_utc_A":1374940826,"created_at_utc_B":1374938665,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I agree with \/u\/crunkjuicer that grad school isn't right for everyone and you should get some real world experience before diving in. In the US a socio cultural PhD takes anywhere from 6-10 years. That is a long fucking time! I wrote up something a while back for someone with suggestions about how to turn your BA into a positive on your resume. I've worked in the \"real world\" in a variety of office jobs and usually do very well and get promoted up in part (I think) because of my anthropology education. I can share those suggestions if you want. If you do go the grad school route we can all give you suggestions for that too when the time is right. Definitely don't pay for a MA unless it is more of an applied MA with a direct and obvious job position that it is training you to do.","human_ref_B":"If you got a BA, then apply for grad school, or start applying for non-anthro jobs. These aren't mutually exclusive events. You could also try and get one of the few seasonal jobs through BLM. They tend to suck. Without advanced degrees, your career path in anthro is extremely limited. If you got an MA, then start working on your Phd application, or try to get a job doing field work. I believe most states will allow you to be a PI for CRM field work with an MA. Check with your SHIPO office, then try to get hired on by a private company, or a state research agency. If you got your Phd, which seems unlikely given the tone of your post, then congratulations, you're a professor now. For the rest of your life you'll have to answer questions about Indiana Jones and Tomb Raider at dinner parties.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2161.0,"score_ratio":2.0} +{"post_id":"1j5f3g","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"So I just received a degree in Anthropology... Now what? I just graduated from university in the US with a degree in anthro. Now the great job search begins and I wanted to see what you guys have and are doing currently! My school was big on Sociocultural. I have had a few TA's tell me I should do grad school, but I am not 100 percent certain that I want to do academics. Hope this question is okay for this sub!","c_root_id_A":"cbbhera","c_root_id_B":"cbbc5o6","created_at_utc_A":1374948387,"created_at_utc_B":1374925660,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Several of the people who graduated around the same time as me have done things very similar to what they did alongside their anthropology degree in college. Museum work led one person to a graduate program in museum studies; several of us who studied abroad taught or teach overseas; one person who was always heavily involved in researching and participating in community supported agriculture (CSA) now works to develop CSA groups; two of us are now involved in study abroad or international student services in higher education after getting experience in international education. I graduated two years ago and taught English on a Fulbright grant before beginning to work with outgoing exchange students at a university. If you can, try to figure out where your experience can be best coupled with your degree. Like several others have said, I would agree with not diving head-first into a graduate program. I will eventually be going back to graduate school, but had I gone straight in, I would be doing completely different things than I am now considering. Besides, you will probably need a graduate degree *plus* experience to get many higher-end jobs; you can get the experience first and figure out what exactly you want to be doing, and then find a well-suited graduate program that will help you get there. If you discover that you are not currently able to get into what you want to be doing right now and can only seem to find a job working at Starbucks, then volunteer or intern somewhere while working at whatever other place. Experience counts for a lot in the world of employment. Oh, and I was recently on a search committee and read dozens of resumes... Take the time to customize your resume and cover letter for each position you apply for. Explain why you are interested in the position, why it is a good fit for you, and how you meet the requirements. There are a lot of people out there who have serious deficiencies in their applications and a little extra time and effort will move your resume much higher in the pile. Furthermore, think hard about how your past experiences can be tied together. Working in a museum might mean experience with relational databases; living overseas provides practice in communicating across cultures; being an office assistant comes with all kinds of marketable experiences. Something that at first seems irrelevant might be what gets you a job. I may not have gotten my current job had I not gotten a lot of experience with databases doing collections management at a museum; it's pretty simple stuff, but it was one of the big things the search committee was looking for. Good luck to you and the other new graduates out there!","human_ref_B":"Go to grad school. :) I hate to say it, but my undergrad in Anthro (archaeology concentration) was just about useless to get a job that pays anything remotely worth a damn. It wasn't until I got my MA that I was able to find supervisory jobs and the like. Before the MA, I found jobs in the retail service sector that paid better than jobs suitable for those with anthro undergrads.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22727.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"1j5f3g","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"So I just received a degree in Anthropology... Now what? I just graduated from university in the US with a degree in anthro. Now the great job search begins and I wanted to see what you guys have and are doing currently! My school was big on Sociocultural. I have had a few TA's tell me I should do grad school, but I am not 100 percent certain that I want to do academics. Hope this question is okay for this sub!","c_root_id_A":"cbbdgpw","c_root_id_B":"cbbhera","created_at_utc_A":1374933725,"created_at_utc_B":1374948387,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I went to law school after I did my undergrad and masters in sociocultural. It was the right decision for me and might be worth considering. Other people go into advertising. There isn't a tonne else out there for you though without doing a bit more education.","human_ref_B":"Several of the people who graduated around the same time as me have done things very similar to what they did alongside their anthropology degree in college. Museum work led one person to a graduate program in museum studies; several of us who studied abroad taught or teach overseas; one person who was always heavily involved in researching and participating in community supported agriculture (CSA) now works to develop CSA groups; two of us are now involved in study abroad or international student services in higher education after getting experience in international education. I graduated two years ago and taught English on a Fulbright grant before beginning to work with outgoing exchange students at a university. If you can, try to figure out where your experience can be best coupled with your degree. Like several others have said, I would agree with not diving head-first into a graduate program. I will eventually be going back to graduate school, but had I gone straight in, I would be doing completely different things than I am now considering. Besides, you will probably need a graduate degree *plus* experience to get many higher-end jobs; you can get the experience first and figure out what exactly you want to be doing, and then find a well-suited graduate program that will help you get there. If you discover that you are not currently able to get into what you want to be doing right now and can only seem to find a job working at Starbucks, then volunteer or intern somewhere while working at whatever other place. Experience counts for a lot in the world of employment. Oh, and I was recently on a search committee and read dozens of resumes... Take the time to customize your resume and cover letter for each position you apply for. Explain why you are interested in the position, why it is a good fit for you, and how you meet the requirements. There are a lot of people out there who have serious deficiencies in their applications and a little extra time and effort will move your resume much higher in the pile. Furthermore, think hard about how your past experiences can be tied together. Working in a museum might mean experience with relational databases; living overseas provides practice in communicating across cultures; being an office assistant comes with all kinds of marketable experiences. Something that at first seems irrelevant might be what gets you a job. I may not have gotten my current job had I not gotten a lot of experience with databases doing collections management at a museum; it's pretty simple stuff, but it was one of the big things the search committee was looking for. Good luck to you and the other new graduates out there!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14662.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"1j5f3g","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"So I just received a degree in Anthropology... Now what? I just graduated from university in the US with a degree in anthro. Now the great job search begins and I wanted to see what you guys have and are doing currently! My school was big on Sociocultural. I have had a few TA's tell me I should do grad school, but I am not 100 percent certain that I want to do academics. Hope this question is okay for this sub!","c_root_id_A":"cbbelgx","c_root_id_B":"cbbhera","created_at_utc_A":1374938665,"created_at_utc_B":1374948387,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"If you got a BA, then apply for grad school, or start applying for non-anthro jobs. These aren't mutually exclusive events. You could also try and get one of the few seasonal jobs through BLM. They tend to suck. Without advanced degrees, your career path in anthro is extremely limited. If you got an MA, then start working on your Phd application, or try to get a job doing field work. I believe most states will allow you to be a PI for CRM field work with an MA. Check with your SHIPO office, then try to get hired on by a private company, or a state research agency. If you got your Phd, which seems unlikely given the tone of your post, then congratulations, you're a professor now. For the rest of your life you'll have to answer questions about Indiana Jones and Tomb Raider at dinner parties.","human_ref_B":"Several of the people who graduated around the same time as me have done things very similar to what they did alongside their anthropology degree in college. Museum work led one person to a graduate program in museum studies; several of us who studied abroad taught or teach overseas; one person who was always heavily involved in researching and participating in community supported agriculture (CSA) now works to develop CSA groups; two of us are now involved in study abroad or international student services in higher education after getting experience in international education. I graduated two years ago and taught English on a Fulbright grant before beginning to work with outgoing exchange students at a university. If you can, try to figure out where your experience can be best coupled with your degree. Like several others have said, I would agree with not diving head-first into a graduate program. I will eventually be going back to graduate school, but had I gone straight in, I would be doing completely different things than I am now considering. Besides, you will probably need a graduate degree *plus* experience to get many higher-end jobs; you can get the experience first and figure out what exactly you want to be doing, and then find a well-suited graduate program that will help you get there. If you discover that you are not currently able to get into what you want to be doing right now and can only seem to find a job working at Starbucks, then volunteer or intern somewhere while working at whatever other place. Experience counts for a lot in the world of employment. Oh, and I was recently on a search committee and read dozens of resumes... Take the time to customize your resume and cover letter for each position you apply for. Explain why you are interested in the position, why it is a good fit for you, and how you meet the requirements. There are a lot of people out there who have serious deficiencies in their applications and a little extra time and effort will move your resume much higher in the pile. Furthermore, think hard about how your past experiences can be tied together. Working in a museum might mean experience with relational databases; living overseas provides practice in communicating across cultures; being an office assistant comes with all kinds of marketable experiences. Something that at first seems irrelevant might be what gets you a job. I may not have gotten my current job had I not gotten a lot of experience with databases doing collections management at a museum; it's pretty simple stuff, but it was one of the big things the search committee was looking for. Good luck to you and the other new graduates out there!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9722.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"95mi0z","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Did past peoples help prevent\/reduce intensity of wildfires through regular burning of vegetation? Hoping to find a source! Hello everyone! I've been reading the book Adventures in the Anthropocene by Gaia Vince, and I stumbled upon an interesting comment in a section about Yellowstone National Park. In the section, it is stated that the indigenous tribes were an intrinsic part of the ecosystem (makes sense), and that the removal of them caused biodiversity loss. The thing that caught my eye, however, was this quote: \"[there was] no one to manage the vegetation through regular burnings which prevent devastating wildfires\" I've tried finding a source for this, but no luck. I was wondering whether anyone else has heard of something similar and can maybe point me in the right direction? Thank you!","c_root_id_A":"e3tsi35","c_root_id_B":"e3u04ej","created_at_utc_A":1533739865,"created_at_utc_B":1533746139,"score_A":11,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"\"Tending the Wild\"","human_ref_B":"There is pretty good amount of research and writing on Australian aboriginal fire management: http:\/\/theconversation.com\/aboriginal-fire-management-part-of-the-solution-to-destructive-bushfires-55032 https:\/\/www.dpaw.wa.gov.au\/management\/fire\/fire-and-the-environment\/41-traditional-aboriginal-burning","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6274.0,"score_ratio":1.3636363636} +{"post_id":"95mi0z","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Did past peoples help prevent\/reduce intensity of wildfires through regular burning of vegetation? Hoping to find a source! Hello everyone! I've been reading the book Adventures in the Anthropocene by Gaia Vince, and I stumbled upon an interesting comment in a section about Yellowstone National Park. In the section, it is stated that the indigenous tribes were an intrinsic part of the ecosystem (makes sense), and that the removal of them caused biodiversity loss. The thing that caught my eye, however, was this quote: \"[there was] no one to manage the vegetation through regular burnings which prevent devastating wildfires\" I've tried finding a source for this, but no luck. I was wondering whether anyone else has heard of something similar and can maybe point me in the right direction? Thank you!","c_root_id_A":"e3u5n26","c_root_id_B":"e3tsi35","created_at_utc_A":1533750553,"created_at_utc_B":1533739865,"score_A":12,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"I just learned about this in my Native American Art and History Class. California Natives were horticulturists and knew their environment very well. They managed their ecosystem through intentional modifications such as cutting back and maintaining vegetation as well as planting crops in certain areas and rotating their locations. They also participated in burning the land for a couple reasons, fire is great way to restore nutrients to the land and start from scratch. Additionally, redwoods which are plentiful in California reproduce through fire. Articles that talk about California Natives and fire management: http:\/\/legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com\/uniontrib\/20071121\/news\\_lz1e21gamble.html https:\/\/arcade.stanford.edu\/occasion\/historical-and-cultural-fires-tribal-management-and-research-issue-northern-california Article that talks about Giant Sequoias and fire: https:\/\/www.nps.gov\/seki\/learn\/nature\/fic\\_segi.htm","human_ref_B":"\"Tending the Wild\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10688.0,"score_ratio":1.0909090909} +{"post_id":"95mi0z","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Did past peoples help prevent\/reduce intensity of wildfires through regular burning of vegetation? Hoping to find a source! Hello everyone! I've been reading the book Adventures in the Anthropocene by Gaia Vince, and I stumbled upon an interesting comment in a section about Yellowstone National Park. In the section, it is stated that the indigenous tribes were an intrinsic part of the ecosystem (makes sense), and that the removal of them caused biodiversity loss. The thing that caught my eye, however, was this quote: \"[there was] no one to manage the vegetation through regular burnings which prevent devastating wildfires\" I've tried finding a source for this, but no luck. I was wondering whether anyone else has heard of something similar and can maybe point me in the right direction? Thank you!","c_root_id_A":"e3u1mkb","c_root_id_B":"e3u5n26","created_at_utc_A":1533747350,"created_at_utc_B":1533750553,"score_A":3,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I can no longer find the article but it looks like Mesolithic Europeans were burning off woodland areas to increase the amount of grassland for the large ruminants to open up the woodlands for boars.","human_ref_B":"I just learned about this in my Native American Art and History Class. California Natives were horticulturists and knew their environment very well. They managed their ecosystem through intentional modifications such as cutting back and maintaining vegetation as well as planting crops in certain areas and rotating their locations. They also participated in burning the land for a couple reasons, fire is great way to restore nutrients to the land and start from scratch. Additionally, redwoods which are plentiful in California reproduce through fire. Articles that talk about California Natives and fire management: http:\/\/legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com\/uniontrib\/20071121\/news\\_lz1e21gamble.html https:\/\/arcade.stanford.edu\/occasion\/historical-and-cultural-fires-tribal-management-and-research-issue-northern-california Article that talks about Giant Sequoias and fire: https:\/\/www.nps.gov\/seki\/learn\/nature\/fic\\_segi.htm","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3203.0,"score_ratio":4.0} +{"post_id":"9ggtzc","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Scholarly texts on Mobile phones and how humans behave around them? Hey everyone. I have an assignment where I pick an object and have to discuss how people behave around it, using my own observations and other scholarly sources. Is mobile phones a good one to do, if not, do you have any other suggestions? Also if you have any links to scholarly sources on how people behave around\/when using mobile phones that would be much appreciated :)","c_root_id_A":"e646ym5","c_root_id_B":"e64b1y5","created_at_utc_A":1537158397,"created_at_utc_B":1537164847,"score_A":7,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I don\u2019t have scholarly sources at this very moment, but there are indeed some anthropological (and other behavioural) studies that revolve around how people use mobile phones. And yes, I think this is a very good object to choose for your assignment, since it is both quite common in a growing number of societies and demands a great deal of user interactions that can also affect the human interactions folks have with each other both online and in the same physical space.","human_ref_B":"Here you have an interesting approach: Everyday Contexts of Camera Phone Use: Steps Toward Technosocial Ethnographic Frameworks Hope you find it useful.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6450.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857} +{"post_id":"9ggtzc","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Scholarly texts on Mobile phones and how humans behave around them? Hey everyone. I have an assignment where I pick an object and have to discuss how people behave around it, using my own observations and other scholarly sources. Is mobile phones a good one to do, if not, do you have any other suggestions? Also if you have any links to scholarly sources on how people behave around\/when using mobile phones that would be much appreciated :)","c_root_id_A":"e64h8cu","c_root_id_B":"e64b8wx","created_at_utc_A":1537177968,"created_at_utc_B":1537165188,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Caterina Cinel; Angela Boldini; Elaine Fox; Riccardo Russo\tDoes the use of mobile phones affect human short-term memory or attention? K.-A. Hossmann; D.M. Hermann\tEffects of electromagnetic radiation of mobile phones on the central nervous system Christian Haarala; Linda Bj\u00f6rnberg; Maria Ek; Matti Laine; Antti Revonsuo; Mika Koivisto; Heikki H\u00e4m\u00e4l\u00e4inen\tEffect of a 902 MHz electromagnetic field emitted by mobile phones on human cognitive function: A replication study Riccardo Russo; Elaine Fox; Caterina Cinel; Angela Boldini; Margaret A. Defeyter; Dariush Mirshekar-Syahkal; Amit Mehta\tDoes acute exposure to mobile phones affect human attention? should be enough to get you started. good luck!","human_ref_B":"I don\u2019t have any sources but I remember my anthro lecturer saying that we have phantom vibrations now where we think our phones are ringing when they really aren\u2019t","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12780.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"9ggtzc","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Scholarly texts on Mobile phones and how humans behave around them? Hey everyone. I have an assignment where I pick an object and have to discuss how people behave around it, using my own observations and other scholarly sources. Is mobile phones a good one to do, if not, do you have any other suggestions? Also if you have any links to scholarly sources on how people behave around\/when using mobile phones that would be much appreciated :)","c_root_id_A":"e64h8cu","c_root_id_B":"e64g0e9","created_at_utc_A":1537177968,"created_at_utc_B":1537175111,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Caterina Cinel; Angela Boldini; Elaine Fox; Riccardo Russo\tDoes the use of mobile phones affect human short-term memory or attention? K.-A. Hossmann; D.M. Hermann\tEffects of electromagnetic radiation of mobile phones on the central nervous system Christian Haarala; Linda Bj\u00f6rnberg; Maria Ek; Matti Laine; Antti Revonsuo; Mika Koivisto; Heikki H\u00e4m\u00e4l\u00e4inen\tEffect of a 902 MHz electromagnetic field emitted by mobile phones on human cognitive function: A replication study Riccardo Russo; Elaine Fox; Caterina Cinel; Angela Boldini; Margaret A. Defeyter; Dariush Mirshekar-Syahkal; Amit Mehta\tDoes acute exposure to mobile phones affect human attention? should be enough to get you started. good luck!","human_ref_B":"How would you study this when people are *always* around mobile phones? It would be like studying how people behave around oxygen. I don't think it's a good choice for an object. You should pick an object that people aren't around all the time and something where you could set up a camera and record it. Like a stop light, a microwave in a breakroom, a vending machine, a water cooler, etc. I mean I think it would be good to study mobile phone use but it doesn't seem to fit the spirit of the assignment. Plus it seems like a boring and obvious choice anyway. You could do something niche and unique and maybe discover something interesting instead of \"people check facebook a lot\". Here's an idea, how about study people around a door to an office building. And see who holds the door for people, like how far away the other person has to be for them to hold it and how often guys hold it for girls, and vice versa.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2857.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"kyslni","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"Recording app for interviewing Hey guys! In the past when I've done ethnographic interviews, I've used a dictaphone. However, someone I'm hoping to interview this summer is apparently a little shy around microphones, so I think the bulky dictaphone would not be the best bet. I now have a smartphone (it only took me until 2020) so I'm wondering if there are any good apps you'd recommend. I'd just like to have the phone sitting on the table so as not to be too intimidating (don't worry though I'll of course be getting consent etc). Any recommendations for good recording apps? Never done this with a phone before so even if it's something really obvious, please tell me. xD","c_root_id_A":"gjj5ssi","c_root_id_B":"gjiwwew","created_at_utc_A":1610849216,"created_at_utc_B":1610844422,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Google's own Recorder app is really good and does automatic transcription for English language interviews. Some people have trouble with it but well worth a look. Though you ought also to read up on privacy and data ownership etc.","human_ref_B":"I use Easy Voice Recorder Pro on a smartphone to record audiobooks. It's something like $3, easy to use, and will record directly to Google Drive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4794.0,"score_ratio":1.5} +{"post_id":"4kz0zn","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"How is Julian Jaynes\u2019s \u201cBicameralism\u201d theory regarded today? As a total newbie, some years ago I was reading \u201cThe God Delusion\u201d when Dawkins mentions Julyan Janyne\u2019s seminal book \u201cThe Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind\u201d. He wrote: > It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between! Probably the former, but I\u2019m hedging my bets. So, well intrigued, I bought a copy and devoured it. When I closed the last page I recalled the Dawkins quote. Man, this has to be proved. Scientifically. Did someone tried? He was theorizing, basically, that for a loooong stretch of time (something like ten or twenty thousand years) humans live, build societies, invent things -without- being self-aware. There were no need of real consciousness. Then (according to wikipedia entry)): > Jaynes theorized that a shift from bicameralism marked the beginning of introspection and consciousness as we know it today. According to Jaynes, this bicameral mentality began malfunctioning or \u201cbreaking down\u201d during the second millennium BC. He speculates that primitive ancient societies tended to collapse periodically, (as in Egypt\u2019s Intermediate Periods and the periodically vanishing cities of the Mayas) as changes in the environment strained the socio-cultural equilibria sustained by this bicameral mindset. The Bronze age collapse of the second millennium BC led to mass migrations and created a rash of unexpected situations and stresses that required ancient minds to become more flexible and creative. Self-awareness, or consciousness, was the culturally evolved solution to this problem. This necessity of communicating commonly observed phenomena among individuals who shared no common language or cultural upbringing encouraged those communities to become self-aware to survive in a new environment. Thus consciousness, like bicamerality, emerged as a neurological adaptation to social complexity in a changing world. But that was his 1976 idea. How about today? What is the scientific community consessus on Bicameralism?","c_root_id_A":"d3jebgd","c_root_id_B":"d3j5ulo","created_at_utc_A":1464201107,"created_at_utc_B":1464190094,"score_A":21,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Perhaps there is more coverage in other fields, but within anthropology, it's rarely mentioned, if ever. There's no school of \"Jaynes-ians\" around. Although the book as a whole comes off as a crackpot project, Dawkins is wrong about it being either\/or, though. The good sections of the book largely concern the philosophy of mind and neurological aspects. He draws on Sperry's split-brain experiments, which are not crackpot in any way. Sperry later went on to win a Nobel for this work. His arguments concerning philosophy of mind are prescient and pre-figured trends that would become popular in the next few decades. His ideas about metaphors are very similar to those of Lakoff and Johnson, who would write Metaphors We Live By a decade after Jaynes. The problem here now is that these are going to be covered in standard texts on phil of mind, psychology, and neuroscience with much more up-to-date research. So on this aspect, it is mostly of historical interest. Here is a review on more recent research in light of Jaynes. Now there are a few promoters of the book (seemingly all outside anthropology) like Dennett. He seems to be interested in the phil of mind aspects as Jaynes concept of consciousness overlaps with his own idea of consciousness as a cultural construct. This is the most reasonable tack to take because the historical aspects are where the book really flies off the rails. I can't find any responses in anthropology journals at all, perhaps suggesting that it was thought to be unworthy of reply at the time. The amount of history it covers is so broad it would take another book to cover. However, it is itself internally inconsistent. Emergence from the periods of bicameralism are suggested to be the result of growth in population density and social complexity. I'll use the Inca example because it's particularly egregious. According to Jaynes, the Inca were bicameral the further up the aristocracy to the Inca himself you get. The sapa Inca is unable to contend with the smarts of the Conquistadors and the rest of the Inca are literally mindless \"automatons,\" despite being supposedly less bicameral than the aristocracy. The narrative in general here is incredibly similar to Jared Diamond's coverage in GGS, except substitute in guns for bicameralism -- here is a badhistory thread on that which covers all the details. Drawing all these conclusions about the nature of an entire society from the Iliad is not really solid argumentation either. Even if his reading of the Iliad is true, it would seem to be contradicted by the epic of Gilgamesh, in which self-awareness is one of the main themes. Edit: Fixed a mix-up with bicameralism and the Inca.","human_ref_B":"How does he propose a major evolutionary development could happen that rapidly across not only large populations, but many unconnected populations? That seems inconsistent with how evolutionary adaptations could work.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11013.0,"score_ratio":1.9090909091} +{"post_id":"23sdgo","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"Is there evidence of greed in hunter gatherer societies?","c_root_id_A":"ch0pcdv","c_root_id_B":"ch05h5k","created_at_utc_A":1398333816,"created_at_utc_B":1398281500,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"On the one hand, your Republican friend is correct that of course people in hunter gatherer societies like some people and dislike others and might at times treat people based upon that. But your friend seems to be simplifying the issue because this kind of act is deeply discouraged and there are social controls to prevent hoarding & refusals to share. As well as the evolutionary benefits of altruism, sharing, and pro-social behaviors. So first it helps to understand the social mechanisms at play in most hunter gatherer societies that reinforce egalitarianism and sharing. Elizabeth Cashdan has summarized a lot of this research in her 2009 article *Egalitarianism Among Hunters and Gatherers* (published in American Anthropologist). Economic egalitarianism isn't just due to the fact that there are few resources and few ways of storing or carrying them. There are strong social controls and reinforcement of economic, social, and political egalitarianism. \"Bushman groups, however, are in fact typified by strong and continual socialization against hoarding (i.e., toward economic equality) and against displays of arrogance and authority (i.e., to- ward social and political equality)...if a person is not generous, the norms of sharing are \u201creinforced\u201d by continual badgering and dunning for gifts\" (116). Temporary windfalls like finding honey or a bunch of berries are expected to be shared with the group as it is part of the larger strategy of pooling risk & resources. She and others argue, though, that this type of leveling is necessary for the survival of the group. As soon as you start seeing horticulture and the ability to produce & store more than you immediately need or could use you begin to see social inequalities developing. So how does this play out? One way to look at this is to examine how hunter gatherers behave in some classic psych experiments. This is what Marlowe did with the Hadza in an article you can read here. He played the Ultimate Game & the Dictator Game with them giving participants about a day and half's worth of wages to use. Everyone at the camp got to play against everyone else at some point so personal relationships & feelings about those were somewhat mitigated. In general, they tended to offer lower stakes to the other person than people in more complex societies (the primary comparison being Los Angeles.) The smaller the camp size the smaller the amounts offered to the other person! This was surprising to Marlowe. But he suggests a few ways to understand it. First, almost everything is public and out in the open for the Hadza in a way that isn't true in America. A game provides a way to escape the constant forced sharing while for Americans they are thinking about it in an economics & fairness way. But in large camps people shared 50% which was about what most Americans did perhaps because there is a greater fear of punishment in larger camps for social infractions like a refusal to share fairly. Being accused of stinginess by multiple people can result in the whole group turning against someone and even exile. (But Marlowe notes he suspect there is actually more hoarding happening in big camps just b\/c of opportunity and this might be why there is also more bickering.) In contrast, advertising generosity might get you further socially in big camps than small ones. Marlowe goes on to add that in general the Hadza tend to hide & hoard small items like money & beads and share equally when it come to big items such as game. It has to do with opportunity and in fact it is why he picked money rather than tobacco or food - people know that with the latter the moment you take it out of your pocket others will demand it. This, then, does suggest that at times hunter gatherers are like other groups and individuals in that they will be selfish. But social Darwinism often is problematic because it ignores a lot of evolutionary studies. They tend to focus on survival of the fittest as survival of the strongest. But that's not what fitness means. Fitness is about getting those genes to survive in the carrier long enough to be passed on to the next generation. That isn't always about being greedy, strong, and king of the mountaintop. In fact, most competition isn't violent or directly against one another. Instead, it is in the scramble for resources and survival in which some individuals & groups are more successful than others. But cooperation, altruism, sharing, etc. are also incredibly important ways that many species evolved to survive. Altruism and sharing activities are found in many animals and has been the subject of many debates & discussions in evolutionary studies. For a review of the evolution of prosocial behaviors & cooperation see here. Cooperation and social interactions are very important for survival and success for humans. Like many other animals & all human societies hunter gatherers also participate in reciprocal altruism which temporarily reduces one individual's fitness to help another's. This is biological but also strongly influenced by & regulated by their culture as we saw above. A greedy stingy Hadza person gets exiled. When that happens not only do their survival odds go down but so do the odds they'll ever find a mating partner. This would have been especially true prior to more recent situations (i.e. the exile couldn't just hitch a ride to Dar and hope for a better life.) But on an even more basic level for society to function or groups to merely survive in harsh conditions we need most members to contribute and cooperate in some way.","human_ref_B":"From what I understand, foraging communities don't have 'wealth', so greed as we know it does not exist. They are often community based and value the community highly. I am currently in an anthropology class and we recently discussed this idea, I'm sure someone else knows more about it than me, this is just my contribution!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":52316.0,"score_ratio":2.0} +{"post_id":"23sdgo","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"Is there evidence of greed in hunter gatherer societies?","c_root_id_A":"ch0nqu3","c_root_id_B":"ch0pcdv","created_at_utc_A":1398324095,"created_at_utc_B":1398333816,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Even though they didn't really have capital, there was greed to some level. Such as, a child wanting to eat all of the food that father\/mother brings home without sharing. edit: I'm not a professional anthropologist by any means I just enjoy reading anthropological books. My source would be Nisa: The Life and Words of a !Kung Woman. In this book I mostly saw greed in regards to food.","human_ref_B":"On the one hand, your Republican friend is correct that of course people in hunter gatherer societies like some people and dislike others and might at times treat people based upon that. But your friend seems to be simplifying the issue because this kind of act is deeply discouraged and there are social controls to prevent hoarding & refusals to share. As well as the evolutionary benefits of altruism, sharing, and pro-social behaviors. So first it helps to understand the social mechanisms at play in most hunter gatherer societies that reinforce egalitarianism and sharing. Elizabeth Cashdan has summarized a lot of this research in her 2009 article *Egalitarianism Among Hunters and Gatherers* (published in American Anthropologist). Economic egalitarianism isn't just due to the fact that there are few resources and few ways of storing or carrying them. There are strong social controls and reinforcement of economic, social, and political egalitarianism. \"Bushman groups, however, are in fact typified by strong and continual socialization against hoarding (i.e., toward economic equality) and against displays of arrogance and authority (i.e., to- ward social and political equality)...if a person is not generous, the norms of sharing are \u201creinforced\u201d by continual badgering and dunning for gifts\" (116). Temporary windfalls like finding honey or a bunch of berries are expected to be shared with the group as it is part of the larger strategy of pooling risk & resources. She and others argue, though, that this type of leveling is necessary for the survival of the group. As soon as you start seeing horticulture and the ability to produce & store more than you immediately need or could use you begin to see social inequalities developing. So how does this play out? One way to look at this is to examine how hunter gatherers behave in some classic psych experiments. This is what Marlowe did with the Hadza in an article you can read here. He played the Ultimate Game & the Dictator Game with them giving participants about a day and half's worth of wages to use. Everyone at the camp got to play against everyone else at some point so personal relationships & feelings about those were somewhat mitigated. In general, they tended to offer lower stakes to the other person than people in more complex societies (the primary comparison being Los Angeles.) The smaller the camp size the smaller the amounts offered to the other person! This was surprising to Marlowe. But he suggests a few ways to understand it. First, almost everything is public and out in the open for the Hadza in a way that isn't true in America. A game provides a way to escape the constant forced sharing while for Americans they are thinking about it in an economics & fairness way. But in large camps people shared 50% which was about what most Americans did perhaps because there is a greater fear of punishment in larger camps for social infractions like a refusal to share fairly. Being accused of stinginess by multiple people can result in the whole group turning against someone and even exile. (But Marlowe notes he suspect there is actually more hoarding happening in big camps just b\/c of opportunity and this might be why there is also more bickering.) In contrast, advertising generosity might get you further socially in big camps than small ones. Marlowe goes on to add that in general the Hadza tend to hide & hoard small items like money & beads and share equally when it come to big items such as game. It has to do with opportunity and in fact it is why he picked money rather than tobacco or food - people know that with the latter the moment you take it out of your pocket others will demand it. This, then, does suggest that at times hunter gatherers are like other groups and individuals in that they will be selfish. But social Darwinism often is problematic because it ignores a lot of evolutionary studies. They tend to focus on survival of the fittest as survival of the strongest. But that's not what fitness means. Fitness is about getting those genes to survive in the carrier long enough to be passed on to the next generation. That isn't always about being greedy, strong, and king of the mountaintop. In fact, most competition isn't violent or directly against one another. Instead, it is in the scramble for resources and survival in which some individuals & groups are more successful than others. But cooperation, altruism, sharing, etc. are also incredibly important ways that many species evolved to survive. Altruism and sharing activities are found in many animals and has been the subject of many debates & discussions in evolutionary studies. For a review of the evolution of prosocial behaviors & cooperation see here. Cooperation and social interactions are very important for survival and success for humans. Like many other animals & all human societies hunter gatherers also participate in reciprocal altruism which temporarily reduces one individual's fitness to help another's. This is biological but also strongly influenced by & regulated by their culture as we saw above. A greedy stingy Hadza person gets exiled. When that happens not only do their survival odds go down but so do the odds they'll ever find a mating partner. This would have been especially true prior to more recent situations (i.e. the exile couldn't just hitch a ride to Dar and hope for a better life.) But on an even more basic level for society to function or groups to merely survive in harsh conditions we need most members to contribute and cooperate in some way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9721.0,"score_ratio":3.0} +{"post_id":"3plqs8","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"What is the strangest mythology or folklore you have come across? Whatever parameters or definition of 'strangest' you decide.","c_root_id_A":"cw7ss1n","c_root_id_B":"cw7uton","created_at_utc_A":1445447370,"created_at_utc_B":1445450241,"score_A":12,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"I don't remember which Native American plains tribe it was, but they have a story they would tell to children to explain how babies were made. It consists of an older man tricking a young girl into sitting on his exposed, erect penis while he is buried underground. The protruding \"stick\" gives the girl a baby of course, and that's where babies come from. I'm forgetting some of the more intricate details I think.","human_ref_B":"This particular North American tribe really sticks out.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2871.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} +{"post_id":"3plqs8","domain":"askanthropology_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"What is the strangest mythology or folklore you have come across? Whatever parameters or definition of 'strangest' you decide.","c_root_id_A":"cw85zrj","c_root_id_B":"cw8kxqn","created_at_utc_A":1445466109,"created_at_utc_B":1445494116,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"There's a Japanese spirit that has no face an an eyeball for an anus. In the Egyptian creation myth, Ra\/Amun or whoever jerks off into the void to create the world. In the Nordic creation myth, the first humans are born from the armpit of a primeval giant.","human_ref_B":"I never really realized the strangeness of some of the Icelandic folklore I grew up with until I started explaining it to some of my American friends. One example is the Christmas Cat (Yule Cat). Children who don't get new clothes for Christmas will get eaten by the cat.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":28007.0,"score_ratio":1.2}