One of the comments reads : Actually, we will probably never figure out, was it man or woman. but I thought this comment of the professor was an interesting eye opener. https://mastodonapp.uk/@MarkHoltom/112070436760917344
this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024
909 points (87.5% liked)
Memes
46041 readers
1449 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
All the idiots claiming it's the moon and giving more details about women's cycles are missing the point of the quote.
Which is spelled out, but I'll place it here.
The idea that it was a woman is just as valid as it being a man, but man is always assumed.
The accuracy of the claim is not at issue. The assumption is.
Who is responsible though? The historian, or the man who inscribed the bone?
Really though? I think it's incredibly arrogant to suggest that "everyone assumes men did this".
Honestly show anyone this bone and ask them, "if this were created 1 million years ago, was it likely a male or female which made the incisions", you might be surprised at the answers.
I'm a grumpy old man who is probably a lot more sexist than your average lemmy commenter, and yet even I can acknowledge that a woman would be much better placed to spend time inventing things, counting things, and planning things than men in are the hunter gatherer sense.
Consistently this is not the case. The effect you're describing is the false consensus effect. Which assumes everyone thinks the same as you do.
Nonsense. The existence of the false consensus effect is not evidence that people assume males were more likely than women to invent calendars in pre-history.
I could just as well say that the assumption that everyone will assume males are more likely to invent calendars in prehistory is a feature of any number of cognitive biases.
No, but the false consensus effect is what you did. Assume people are the same as your opinion.
What about the respiring mammal effect, whereby both you and I are simultaneously respiring, allowing us to not die and enabling our respective cognition? It's not particularly relevant either.
Most people expressing opinions assume that their opinions are widely held.
I'm coining a new logical fallacy. I'm calling it the logical fallacy logical fallacy, whereby people think that enumerating logical fallacies and cognitive biases somehow makes their argument more compelling. Really, it just makes you look like a vapid lazy thinker.
🙄