While I agree the evidence is somewhat sparse, I think this is more of an issue of ease-of-reading versus rigor, and I think you’ve struck a reasonable balance.
I think the central thesis of this is, “The ‘classic’ view of ev-bio/psych that is modeled on the male earner, female caretaker family structure is probably wrong.” If that’s the case, your argument and evidence seem fairly solid. If you’re going so far as to argue some other specific structure, then you’re a bit short on evidence. There is an odd tendency to think that 1955 is the paradigm of human society, when it is decidedly an outlier.
I’m admittedly biased. Ever since I read about the history of marriage, I’ve suspected that the “History is just like 1950′s” view is extremely flawed. Even in agricultural societies, mating was not really determined by individuals, but by their families. Cheating was probably relatively infrequent given the control exercised over women and the difficulty of cheating in a small village without lights available in the evening (as opposed to a large city).
I think this is an excellent post promoting an interesting topic, and I expect it is seeing relatively few upvotes because it runs contrary to many people’s cherished beliefs.
As a rural sort, I’d like to make the point that the full moon is bright enough to read by, and to see some colours.
Townies think the night is dark because they’re dazzled by street lights and cars and never have working night vision.
In the absence of artificial light, it only gets truly dark when you can’t see the moon or sun.
And even where I grew up, there was always enough light in the sky that the galaxy was difficult to see. Go somewhere truly out of the way and it’s like a shining belt all across the sky. That’s what real human night vision is like.
From “Sense and Sensibility”, by Jane Austen:
“[Sir John Middleton] had been to several families that morning, in hopes of procuring some addition to their number, but it was moonlight, and every body was full of engagements.”
Cheating was probably relatively infrequent given the control exercised over women and the difficulty of cheating in a small village without lights available in the evening (as opposed to a large city).
The point Arfle is making seems to me to be that there is plenty of light available in small villages at night; on nights close to the full moon at least.
Personally, I’m not sure that light would be considered useful in successful infidelity anyway, wouldn’t darker conditions be preferred?
Personally, I’m not sure that light would be considered useful in successful infidelity anyway, wouldn’t darker conditions be preferred?
Not if it’s so dark that you can’t walk around outside. Infidelity during the evening requires, at a minimum, that one of the people involved walk to the others residence without getting lost or injured.
Not if it’s so dark that you can’t walk around outside.
Walking a short route that you know well is possible even in pitch black. I have, on a couple of occasions, had reason to test this myself, and certainly blind people have reason to test it very often.
With starlight to silhouette certain landmarks the possible distance would be much increased, and need for familiarity decreased.
Indeed, it’s possible to walk and even bike by starlight or less. I had a bad habit at RIT of biking through the woods by the mess hall late at night; there is no illumination on the footpath and even the stars were hard to see. I could do it without injury because I did it so often.
arfle was illustrating the problem with generalizing about the experiences of our ancestors from our own experiences. (Or so I gather.) Any theory that assumes that the past couple centuries are like the human evolutionary environment in any way is deeply flawed.
I (and Ryan and Jethá) would go further and say that the problem really applies to a timeframe closer to a hundred centuries than two, but the idea is the same.
“Cherishing” those beliefs is quite distinct from holding those beliefs. Even pickup artists operate off of a framework that assumes a fundamental male-earner plus female-nurturer social structure, which is just wrong, since humans were typically tribal and had more extensive social networks than nuclear families. Whether or not people like that system does not relate to whether they think it is of historical/evolutionary significance.
While I agree the evidence is somewhat sparse, I think this is more of an issue of ease-of-reading versus rigor, and I think you’ve struck a reasonable balance.
I think the central thesis of this is, “The ‘classic’ view of ev-bio/psych that is modeled on the male earner, female caretaker family structure is probably wrong.” If that’s the case, your argument and evidence seem fairly solid. If you’re going so far as to argue some other specific structure, then you’re a bit short on evidence. There is an odd tendency to think that 1955 is the paradigm of human society, when it is decidedly an outlier.
I’m admittedly biased. Ever since I read about the history of marriage, I’ve suspected that the “History is just like 1950′s” view is extremely flawed. Even in agricultural societies, mating was not really determined by individuals, but by their families. Cheating was probably relatively infrequent given the control exercised over women and the difficulty of cheating in a small village without lights available in the evening (as opposed to a large city).
I think this is an excellent post promoting an interesting topic, and I expect it is seeing relatively few upvotes because it runs contrary to many people’s cherished beliefs.
As a rural sort, I’d like to make the point that the full moon is bright enough to read by, and to see some colours.
Townies think the night is dark because they’re dazzled by street lights and cars and never have working night vision.
In the absence of artificial light, it only gets truly dark when you can’t see the moon or sun.
And even where I grew up, there was always enough light in the sky that the galaxy was difficult to see. Go somewhere truly out of the way and it’s like a shining belt all across the sky. That’s what real human night vision is like.
From “Sense and Sensibility”, by Jane Austen:
“[Sir John Middleton] had been to several families that morning, in hopes of procuring some addition to their number, but it was moonlight, and every body was full of engagements.”
I suppose, since this got 5 upvotes, that it isn’t just a random non-sequitur. But it looks like one to me.
It seems to be a response to:
The point Arfle is making seems to me to be that there is plenty of light available in small villages at night; on nights close to the full moon at least.
Personally, I’m not sure that light would be considered useful in successful infidelity anyway, wouldn’t darker conditions be preferred?
Not if it’s so dark that you can’t walk around outside. Infidelity during the evening requires, at a minimum, that one of the people involved walk to the others residence without getting lost or injured.
Walking a short route that you know well is possible even in pitch black. I have, on a couple of occasions, had reason to test this myself, and certainly blind people have reason to test it very often.
With starlight to silhouette certain landmarks the possible distance would be much increased, and need for familiarity decreased.
Indeed, it’s possible to walk and even bike by starlight or less. I had a bad habit at RIT of biking through the woods by the mess hall late at night; there is no illumination on the footpath and even the stars were hard to see. I could do it without injury because I did it so often.
arfle was illustrating the problem with generalizing about the experiences of our ancestors from our own experiences. (Or so I gather.) Any theory that assumes that the past couple centuries are like the human evolutionary environment in any way is deeply flawed.
I (and Ryan and Jethá) would go further and say that the problem really applies to a timeframe closer to a hundred centuries than two, but the idea is the same.
Thanks, that sounds reasonable.
Who posts on LW and cherishes traditional 1950s establishment beliefs about human sexuality?
“Cherishing” those beliefs is quite distinct from holding those beliefs. Even pickup artists operate off of a framework that assumes a fundamental male-earner plus female-nurturer social structure, which is just wrong, since humans were typically tribal and had more extensive social networks than nuclear families. Whether or not people like that system does not relate to whether they think it is of historical/evolutionary significance.