Not unlike the #Monomyth, starting with the TL;DR of Darwin's theories is more open-ended than you'd think, and this means it lends itself to being fertilizer for shithead ideologues to make their means to an end palatable. Not all evopsych enthusiasts see themselves as bedfellows with eugenicists, nor successors to the phrenologists before them, but if you *are* for #eugenics, then evopsych is the perfect smokescreen, and you might as well call yourself one to confuse everyone else.*

The author seems keen to promote evopsych not as a third wheel to #neuroscience and #anthropology*, but as the main act (see next post):

> Evolutionary theory tells us our purpose is to survive and reproduce. These are complex aims, not least reproduction, which, for humans, means manipulating what potential mates think of us. Convincing a member of the opposite sex that we’re a desirable mate is a challenge that requires a deep understanding of social concepts such as attraction, status, reputation and rituals of courting. Ultimately, then, we could say the mission of the brain is this: control.
- pp. 16-17

Right off the bat, the evopsych framing is front and center. Evolution, alone, can explain why we behave the way we do, and thus, how plot elements work to stir our emotions.

He takes no pause to consider what this might imply. Were this actually the case, we could quite happily throw #anthropology in its entirety out the window with few consequences; eschew the full, uncut archive of human experience and social/political experimentation, in favour of a few shelves, and say, "Well, it looks better this way, and it makes more sense.*" I find that quite myopic.

The Davids bring in the work of #ChristopherBoehm, an evolutionary anthropologist and specialist in primate studies, who writes that yes, we inherited dominant and submissive behaviours from the simians we descended from, but what separates humans - and human societies - from other primates is that not only can we consciously choose not to act in a certain way, we also understand how our society is impacted if we do not act to keep bullies in check (see next post):

> "Carefully working through ethnographic accounts of existing egalitarian foraging bands in Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia, #Boehm identifies a whole panopoly of tactics collectively employed to bring would-be braggarts and bullies down to earth - ridicule, shame, shunning (and in the case of inveterate sociopaths, sometimes even outright assassination) - none of which have any parallel among other primates."
- pp. 174-5

Emphasis my own here:

> While gorillas do not mock each other for beating their chests, humans do so regularly. Even more strikingly, while the bullying behaviour might well be instinctual, counter-bullying is *NOT*: it's a well-thought-out *STRATEGY*, and forager societies who engage in it… understand what their society might look like if they did things differently…
- Ibid.

#Boehm argues this is the 'essence' of politics, and it's not a 20th-century idea - the Davids trace it back to #Artistotle's description of humans as 'political animals.' Despite the evidence, however, Boehm still concludes that, until around 12,000 years ago, all human settlements that came and went followed the exact same egalitarian social arrangements. Suddenly, hierarchy! Talk about conservative* cognitive dissonance.

> So, according to Boehm, for about 200,000 years political animals all chose to live just one way; then, of course, they began to rush headlong into their chains, and ape-like dominance patterns re-emerged.
- Ibid, pp. 177

VERY small-c, mark you: "This is a brilliant and important argument – but, like so many authors, Boehm seems strangely reluctant to consider its full implications."