> Many details of this particular experiment made me greatly reduce my confidence and interest in social science.
There is a reason why many scientists diplomatically classify social "science" as a soft science. Less diplomatically minded scientists like Feynmann call it pseudoscience.
Yesterday’s post said the probability of this anomaly occurring is difficult to calculate and showed that it happened 0 times in 1 million simulations. This new post by Tao provides a calculation where the probability is about 1 in 100 million
> For anyone curious, there is absolutely no evidence of coordinated violence between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens [0]
'coordinated'.
> and it is believed that war developed during the Neolithic when well defined territories became more important.
What about simple tribal violence?
> If it was just "to the victor go the spoils" you'd expect a mix as sometimes one side would win and sometimes the other over the thousands of years.
Two examples refutes your assertion. In the US/Canada/Australia, the natives won a few and yet the male native lineage has been effectively wiped out. Almost all the interbreeding between the europeans and natives was between european males and native females. Mexico is another example. About 65% of the male Y chromosome is european while almost 100% of the female lineage is native. Mexico never experienced whole mass european immigration like the US, Canada or Australia. With only a tiny spanish population, over 400 years, the spanish male lineage has come to dominate mexico.
> The evidence is much better explained by only male sapiens-female neanderthal couplings producing fertile offspring, which is a common thing for hybrids.
Except that modern homo-sapiens completely displaced the neanderthals. If it was simply a matter of innocent hybridization, neanderthals would still exist as they breed better with each other than hybrids do. Not to mention most animals have an innate aversion to hybridization. It only tends to happen as a last resort in the wild.
Take a guided tour with Clinton from Ngurrangga Tours as you travel through the Murujuga National Park. With the highest concentration of rock art in the world, rediscover the petroglyphs (rock art) created by the Yaburrara (Northern Ngarluma) people. The rock art has been dated back to before the ice age ended and is approx. over 40,000 years old and there is up to 1 million rock art images scattered across the entire Burrup Peninsula and Dampier Archipelago.
As you venture down the creek at Deep Gorge, surrounded by huge granite boulders and Currajong trees, marvel at the petroglyphs etched into the rocks, and gain an appreciation of the Jaburara Tribe’s self sufficient lifestyle. Shell middens provide evidence of their seafood diets; the granite boulders would have offered shelter from the harsh weather conditions; and the creek, now mostly dry, would have been their only water supply.
> What kind of world do you live in that has denied you access to evidence of early human existence?
I didn't say humans didn't exist 20,000 years ago, I said there was no tribal violence. There's no evidence the Jaburara were organized as a tribe 40,000 years ago, although later on that may have happened.
Hunter gatherer bands. There's no evidence of any tribes 20,000 years ago.
> Unless you are arguing semantics, yes there were. Tribes and tribal violence.
There is no evidence of any tribes existing 47,000 years ago. Insofar as tribes, and tribal violence, the OP mentioned them, which is wrong in that time frame, semantics or not.
That is what I mean by coordinated. Group on group violence. Presumably there were interpersonal conflicts over such an immense period of time, and we have evidence of individuals potentially being injured by artifacts, which could be accidental or intentional, but we don't find anything like signs of a struggle at an inhabited cave or post battle burial pit or stolen artifacts that would be loot, or attempts at creating defenses like fortifications or armor, or cave paintings depicting battles, or signs of a culture that valued warriors. There is no evidence of any coordinated conflicts at all, nonetheless a specific Sapien vs Neanderthal conflict. We only see evidence for such conflicts in the neolithic after people adopted sedentary lifestyles and territory would be defended.
It's further worth noting that in observations of modern hunter gatherer societies, interpersonal violence is common but group violence is basically non-existent. The idea of savages killing the men and stealing the women of neighboring tribes is a myth. Again, there is no evidence to suggest that things were substantially different then.
> Two examples refutes your assertion. In the US/Canada/Australia, the natives won a few and yet the male native lineage has been effectively wiped out. Almost all the interbreeding between the europeans and natives was between european males and native females. Mexico is another example. About 65% of the male Y chromosome is european while almost 100% of the female lineage is native. Mexico never experienced whole mass european immigration like the US, Canada or Australia. With only a tiny spanish population, over 400 years, the spanish male lineage has come to dominate mexico.
Those examples do not refute the assertion. For starters, Native American Y-chromosomes come from many haplogroups and are predominantly not european in origin, so your claim is just incorrect on the face. Second, we know for a fact that Homo Sapiens came to europe for several thousand years and then died out. The Neanderthals didn't just get a few licks in, they won overall. Yet we have no evidence of any male neanderthal ever fathering a child with a sapien female. Finally, the europeans didn't murder all the men and rape all the women in the americas; while Europe gained polical hegemony and did numerous terrible things, there were numerous alliances with various native polities, and the overwhelming majority of the Americas' depopulation was due to disease.
> Except that modern homo-sapiens completely displaced the neanderthals. If it was simply a matter of innocent hybridization, neanderthals would still exist as they breed better with each other than hybrids do. Not to mention most animals have an innate aversion to hybridization. It only tends to happen as a last resort in the wild.
I don't understand what you are trying to argue here. Sapiens having difficulty producing fertile offspring with Neanderthals would make it more likely that Neanderthals die out, not keep them around. And given that this interbreeding was happening rarely over the course of thousands of years as Neanderthals were going extinct, hybridizing as a last resort is a very likely explanation for the pairings.
> but we don't find anything like signs of a struggle at an inhabited cave or post battle burial pit or stolen artifacts that would be loot, or attempts at creating defenses like fortifications or armor, or cave paintings depicting battles, or signs of a culture that valued warriors. T
We don't see that amongst primitive peoples who lived a basic subsistence living? How shocking! We don't see any of that for chimps either, but guess what? Chimps fight neighboring groups of chimps.
> It's further worth noting that in observations of modern hunter gatherer societies, interpersonal violence is common but group violence is basically non-existent.
This is true for pretty much all human and all social animals. Humans, like most animals, try avoid deadly fights. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Also, the 'modern' hunter gatherer societies that survived to this day probably were the less violent/more cowardly variety. The violent hunter gathers probably did a good job of killing themselves. Especially when europeans came around with modern weaponry.
> The idea of savages killing the men and stealing the women of neighboring tribes is a myth.
That it happened with frequency is a myth. But given the lack of diversity in the male Y chromosome compared to female mitochondrial, it isn't rocket science to assume it happened.
> For starters, Native American Y-chromosomes come from many haplogroups and are predominantly not european in origin, so your claim is just incorrect on the face.
No shit. That's my point. In the US, which haplogroup dominates today? The native haplogroup or the european?
> Second, we know for a fact that Homo Sapiens came to europe for several thousand years and then died out. The Neanderthals didn't just get a few licks in, they won overall.
If the neanderthals 'won', homo sapiens wouldn't have survived in europe for several thousand years.
> The Neanderthals didn't just get a few licks in, they won overall.
Any evidence for that? Of course not.
> Yet we have no evidence of any male neanderthal ever fathering a child with a sapien female.
Hmmmm... I wonder why?
> Finally, the europeans didn't murder all the men and rape all the women in the americas;
No shit. Why are you playing these manipulative games? Did I say every single native was raped and killed in half the globe?
> while Europe gained polical hegemony and did numerous terrible things, there were numerous alliances with various native polities
No shit.
> and the overwhelming majority of the Americas' depopulation was due to disease.
Nonsense. Native depopulation was primarily a result of war and habitat loss. But what does that have to do with the haplogroup assertion?
> Sapiens having difficulty producing fertile offspring with Neanderthals would make it more likely that Neanderthals die out, not keep them around.
No. You wrote: 'The evidence is much better explained by only male sapiens-female neanderthal couplings producing fertile offspring, which is a common thing for hybrids.' That's what I was responding to.
> And given that this interbreeding was happening rarely over the course of thousands of years as Neanderthals were going extinct, hybridizing as a last resort is a very likely explanation for the pairings.
Are you being intentionally dense? What does 'hybridizing as a last resort' even mean? The neanderthals were realizing they were going extinct so they decided to speed up the process by intentionally mixing with humans?
You wrote: "Again, there is no evidence to suggest that things were substantially different then." Humans today aren't different from humans 100000 years ago. Or 50000 year ago. Think about it.
> We don't see any of that for chimps either, but guess what? Chimps fight neighboring groups of chimps.
Chimps don't inhabit caves, or bury their dead, or keep artifacts, or build structures, or wear clothing, or paint events. Neanderthals and sapiens did.
We do have evidence of wars, it just comes from after the development of agriculture.
Again the claim is there is no evidence of group violence, not that it never happened ever over all those millenia.
> This is true for pretty much all human and all social animals. Humans, like most animals, try avoid deadly fights. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
That is what I am saying.
> But given the lack of diversity in the male Y chromosome compared to female mitochondrial, it isn't rocket science to assume it happened.
This is circular reasoning. My entire argument is that the lack of y chromosome diversity is not from warfare, and thus can not be used as evidence of warfare.
> No shit. That's my point. In the US, which haplogroup dominates today? The native haplogroup or the european?
Among the native american population? Haplogroup Q, which comes from Siberia. If you're asking what haplogroup dominates the current residents of the US, that is European, as the overwhelming majority of people who currently live there are not descended from the natives. You claimed that europeans wiping out the Native American Y chromosome is proof that the neanderthal Y chromosome was wiped out the same way; given that the native American Y chromosome was not wiped out, how could it be evidence?
> If the neanderthals 'won', homo sapiens wouldn't have survived in europe for several thousand years.
By won, I mean Neanderthals were the sole survivors in Europe after that period of time.
> Hmmmm... I wonder why?
You should wonder why. In case it wasn't clear, I'm not just saying there is no evidence of the neanderthal male line continuing to today, I am saying that if you dig up fossils of neanderthals in places where interbreeding has happended, and you check the genomes of the individuals there, you will find neanderthals living amongst neanderthals, descended from sapien males, but to date none have been found descended from sapien females.
> No shit. Why are you playing these manipulative games? Did I say every single native was raped and killed in half the globe?
These aren't manipulative games. You are claiming that sapiens murdered the males and raped the female neanderthals, and citing the european colonization of the americas as an example of the same bahavior to show a pattern.
> Are you being intentionally dense? What does 'hybridizing as a last resort' even mean? The neanderthals were realizing they were going extinct so they decided to speed up the process by intentionally mixing with humans?
Hybridizing is the verb for mating with a member of a different species. Hybridizing as a last resort means when you can't find a mate of your own species, you then try to mate with a different species, as a last resort. As they died out, neanderthals would have become fewer and fewer in number, and it would be harder and harder to find another neanderthal to mate with. They would probably have rather bumped uglies with some sapiens than die virgins.
> You wrote: "Again, there is no evidence to suggest that things were substantially different then." Humans today aren't different from humans 100000 years ago. Or 50000 year ago. Think about it.
And if you look at humans living today under circumstances very similar to those of the past, they do not engage in war rape. There is no reason to believe people in the past behaved differently.
> It’s the difference between drilling vocabulary flashcards and actually reading, listening, or talking to someone.
You need the 'flashcards' before you can read, listen or talk. Go try reading a book where you don't know most of the words. Heck you need 'flashcards' before you needs 'flashcards for words'. You need to memorize the alphabet first. Try reading a text where you haven't learned the writing system.
> Young children do not use vocab flashcards to learn their L1.
Because they can't read.
> They aren’t being “drilled” to learn “mama.”
Obviously you aren't a parent. You think a child magically decides one day to say mama? Or do you think it's the mother constantly saying 'mama' to the child until the child 'remembers it' and repeats it?
> They have actual needs in an actual social context and attend to nuanced details of that context to make complex statistical inferences about the world, their perceptions, and their body.
What? Complex statistical inferences about the world?
> Heck you need 'flashcards' before you needs 'flashcards for words'. You need to memorize the alphabet first.
I've a toddler who can read 3 paragraphs of 3 sentences each, and then tell you the details of the story he read[1]. He is 4y6m, right now. He has never learned the alphabet or the names of the letters (A,B, C, D, etc). He has only learned the sounds a letter or sequence of letters make for certain patterns.
You most definitely do not need to memorise the alphabet in order to learn to read!
Teaching children the alphabet before teaching them reading makes it a lot harder for them to learn actual reading.
[1] I've seen kids as old as 7 get confused by a book with no pictures, and he sails right on through because I taught him to read (using the DISTAR alphabet), and made sure none of our daily lessons had even a single picture in it.
> We're good at focusing on our long-term greed and hunger over short-term greed and hunger.
If that were true, the modern world centered around consumerism wouldn't exist. We wouldn't have the obesity epidemic, environmental degradation or the genocide of dozens of native nations. Feels like short-term thinking where it's at.
> Well, okay, but rote memorization is neither necessary nor sufficient to internalize concepts.
Of course it is. It's how every human child learns initially. By rote memorization. How does a toddler learn how to say mama? By constantly hearing and repeating it. How does a kid learn their ABCs? Rote memorization is the basis of all memory.
> Memorization in programming gives us architecture astronauts and design-pattern soup rather than elegant code.
Dumbest thing I've ever read. You write programs well by doing and remembering. Same with writing. Memorization is the necessary component to programming well. In other words, you program well by remembering elegant code.
> For me, at least, trying to memorize something without context
After the basics, most memorization is contextual.
> At the same time, memorization has a real cost: it takes time and it's frightfully dull.
Oh dear. Something isn't fun all the time. What a childish worldview. It's more fun to eat candy and drink soda than eating 'dull'. It's more fun to sit and watch youtube than to workout.
> Sometimes a bit of memorization is unavoidable, but I've found that to be relatively rare.
Relatively rare? In order to be competent in anything, you have to memorize lots. You can't write a good essay without having memorized much of the material. Trying reading a book where you have to constantly look up definitions of words because you lack the vocabulary. Try having a conversation with someone who has to constantly look up words because he lacks the vocabulary. Try having code review with someone who doesn't remember anything about their code.
> Otherwise, my time is generally better spent on some sort of practice in context.
Why? Because it helps you remember?
To the idiot ( probably OP ) who downvoted, try coding without having 'memorized' the keyboard. The anti-intellectual, anti-hard work, anti-memorization agenda pushed by some 'people' online bears looking into.
> I agree with the other counterarguments raised in the article about sound shifts etc.
With more DNA data, we wouldn't necessarily need linguistic characteristics to chart language ancestory, we could also look at the DNA evidence.
> one reads Homer, the Rig Veda, and the Twelve Tables side by side, one gets the distinct hard-to-articulate impression that these texts were produced by closely related cultures.
We know that the romans borrowed heavily from the greeks. That rome and greeks were closely related is well known. Everything from law to literature to religion. Not sure about the Rig Veda.
> I could point to discrete things like how patriarchal they were (even by ancient standards), the importance attached to herding and poetry, etc.
> With more DNA data, we wouldn't necessarily need linguistic characteristics to chart language ancestory, we could also look at the DNA evidence.
DNA evidence tends to favor the Steppe hypothesis.
> We know that the romans borrowed heavily from the greeks. That rome and greeks were closely related is well known. Everything from law to literature to religion. Not sure about the Rig Veda.
There are in fact some instances where Archaic Rome is closer to Vedic India than it is to Greece - the horse sacrifice, regulations around high priests and kings, etc. You can dismiss the similarities between Greece and Rome as due to borrowing, but you can't do the same with Rome and India.
> That describes a lot of cultures.
I specifically said those discrete elements weren't sufficient to convey the "vibe", so yeah.
> DNA evidence tends to favor the Steppe hypothesis.
There you go.
> There are in fact some instances where Archaic Rome is closer to Vedic India than it is to Greece
But you weren't talking about archaic rome. Also cherrypicking 'some' instances doesn't prove anything. There are some instances where the US is closer to China than Britain. So what?
> I specifically said those discrete elements weren't sufficient to convey the "vibe", so yeah.
You didn't convey anything. Not even a vibe. Your current response shows that you were just spewing nonsense with your original comment.
Doubt it.
> and Microsoft Edge is moving towards implementing their own equivalent of uBlock built into the browser (thus, not Javascript, runs much faster).
Isn't Microsoft pushing ads onto the OS itself? If they are willing to show ads on the start menu, why would they block ads on Edge?