I am not familiar with those particular people's work but that doesn't mean that I have heard plenty of other challenges or read extensively on the topic. My discussion was substantive. What the hell is wrong with you? Every point I made was supported with scientific/expert backing, in detail. What you don't like is that I haven't agreed with you out of hand, even though you haven't truly presented anything substantive yourself that hasn't already been refuted.

I didn't equate what you were saying to Fox news. That quote simply made the point that they are also people who tend to believe in violence as a natural human behavior, which isn't really surprising because Republicans are overwhelmingly wedded to the rightness of the dominance heirarchy. It's what makes sense to them and they largely believe it is natural. That's why they elected Trump, who had nothing else to offer, other than a return to the dominance hierarchy.

What exactly is your thesis, because it seems to change every time that we talk? I quoted several anthropologists. Dr. Grey is the one I excerpted in the most detail and then I noted that what he says is consistent with everything else I have ever read about true H/G bands who have not been corrupted by outsiders. To date, you haven't actually demonstrated differently. You haven't provided anything except page numbers to research that I can't easily access.

I've noted the overlaps in our beliefs often, but mostly by way of asking you why are you nitpicking when you clearly agree with so much that I've said. Why pick a fight when that is the case? Then next minute your turn around and tell me that I'm emotional, talking out of my unsupported opinion, etc. when I've done nothing but cite one subject matter expert after another from a wide variety of subject matters. What exactly is the purpose of that? Why are you so unable to recognize that even if our sources don't completely align, that mine are also from reputable scientific sources?

I honestly don't know what you believe after all of this. You've danced all over the place, questioning me, then agreeing, then asserting I've said things that I never have. It seems to me that mostly you want to "win" which is a clear dominance hierarchy posture. If you actually sought to discuss and share information, you wouldn't have been so condescending about it and would have recognized that I have presented data and analysis from reputable scientific sources.

I've done my best to interpret your meaning, and if I've not done that ably, I apologize but at least some of that is on you for not being more clear. I thought your thesis was that humans have always been violent and that this did not come about primarily due to the rise of dominance hierarchies (which was my thesis). If that isn't your thesis, then what is it?