= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on Against the standard narrative of human sexual evolution - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (153)
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.