As already quoted to you once about North American Native Tribes,
"In addition to the kinship systems, tribes have informal and formal methods of organizing the community and ensuring conformity. For example, among the Crow Indians, there exists the idea of "teasing cousins." Teasing cousins could ridicule other teasing cousins into proper behavior. The teasing, often conducted in public, resulted in the person being teased adopting the proper behavior and humility. The Navajos, as well as other tribal groups, have a similar relationship system that is to control behavior. "
So your beliefs are wrong - most indigenous egalitarian cultures have these same sorts of mechanisms for reminding people of acceptable behavior, and no, this does not discourage excellence, it discourages bragging, and bids for power. Hunter-gatherers, in particular, take personal autonomy and individualism very seriously, and they don't want to get into a situation where someone starts imagining they are the boss of them just because they are good at hunting or whatever. Quite obviously, doing things that inhibit excellence would be evolutionarily maladaptive so that's not what is going on. Duh! Things like food sharing are key survival strategies and if someone starts thinking they are too important to have to do that, it's bad for everyone.
"The hunter-gatherer version of equality meant that each person was equally entitled to food, regardless of his or her ability to find or capture it; so food was shared. It meant that nobody had more wealth than anyone else; so all material goods were shared. It meant that nobody had the right to tell others what to do; so each person made his or her own decisions. It meant that even parents didn't have the right to order their children around; hence the non-directive childrearing methods that I have discussed in previous posts. It meant that group decisions had to be made by consensus; hence no boss, "big man," or chief."
Honestly, if you find that dystopian, I have to wonder what is wrong with your head. In addition, those who study H/G tribes are always amazed at the level of skill and excellence that is taking place in their everyday endeavors.
For cultures that have chiefs, or councils of elders, they still value and honor personal autonomy in ways that are not typically tolerated in Western cultures.
What terms am I confusing? I can't read your mind - be specific about what you are talking about.
That may well be that cultures with more equal wealth and power have less innovation, although that's a different topic, and in addition, you also haven't provided anything to actually support that assertion. Aside from the fact that Denmark has a very egalitarian culture and also a highly GDP, this is off topic for what we are discussing. You trying to change the subject so you can weasel out of admitting that you don't know as much as you thought isn't going to work with me. None of that is remotely relevant to the question of whether patriarchy arose for the first time 6-9 k years ago.
Unless you can demonstrate somehow that human social systems did not radically change at the time of the agricultural revolution, I think we're about done here. That was the claim of mine that you challenged. I've made my case. Either make yours or be an adult and admit that I'm right.
Edit: And whether or not you find enforced egalitarianism dystopian or not is irrelevant to the fact that it was the primary survival strategy for humans for hundreds of thousands of years. Christopher Boehm, the head of the Jane Goodall Research Center, has characterized suppressing our primate ancestors dominance hierarchies as a central aspect of human evolution. You not liking it has no impact on whether or not it is true, beneficial, or what have you. This was very literally the main reason that humans didn’t end up going extinct.
