The level of condescencion here is really just WOW! How do you know how widely read I am on this topic? I give you a response laden with citations to scientific experts from a wide variety of disciplines and you act as if I'm just spouting my own unsubstantiated opinion. It's really quite remarkable, although sadly, not unprecedented. Men like you are kind of a cliche at this juncture.

And how am I supposed to read your sources. You didn't provide hotlinks and I'm not going to go out and buy a book that, based on what other men similar to you have cited to me in the past, is unlikely to actually prove what you say it does. Plus, it's one book - I've read dozens on this topic, as well as hundreds of articles, most of which are from scientific journals and publications from a wide variety of disciplines.

I'm well aware of theories that challenge my thesis and I've yet to see any that really holds any water. I write about them from time to time even - and I'm bolstered by a lot of experts who concur. I obtained my beliefs from what the overwhelming evidence demonstrates - which has been rather thoroughly documented both in my original story and in this one (plus everything else I've written on this topic in the past several years) - again, from respectable scientific sources. The premise of my original story that you commented on was that systemic and large-scale violence only arose about 13,000 years ago around the same time as agriculture (and dominance hierarchies). If you don't disupte that, then why did you comment in the first place?

I've cited other anthropologists other than Dr. Gray. Did you miss that somehow? And beyond that, what we are is demonstrated by the fact that babies who are hungry will overwhelmingly share their food with strangers. It's demonstrated by the fact that whole cities in crisis will put aside their differences and come together to help each other. It's demonstrated by the fact that neuroscience shows that our sense of self is much more group-oriented than one might tend to believe. It's demonstrated by the fact that we only made it this far as a species because we cooperated.

I've never said that humans don't need group pressure at times in order to maintain their best instincts. In fact, I've spoken to the importance of that repeatedly and even quoted from Dr. Boehm about that. But just as occasional interpersonal violence is entirely different than systemic violence being an accepted part of a culture, occasional personal egotistical or selfish behavior is not the same as a culture that is built around getting the most for yourself at everyone else's expense.

You seem to think that I don't understand what patriarchal dominance hierarchies have wrought, but nothing could be further from the truth. That's primarily what I write about - just that specifically, but that's not human nature (as I said to you in my first reply) it's the social system in action. Improve the social system and we have a chance to impact just about every social ill there is, from racism to war to you name it. But patriarchy only arose at the time of agriculture. Which was the point of my original story.

You haven't actually disproved anything I've said. In fact, you seem to largely agree with me when it comes right down to it, but you still want to nitpick for some reason on elements that quite often I've never asserted differently. The fact that you felt the need to reply in such a condescending manner and haven't really said anything of substance means I won't be spending any more time on this.