Isolated Hunter-Gatherers tended to (and still) coalesce around the person whose opinions were correct more often then not. Violence was not a default until populations grew. The measures may be arbitrary, but can always be defined as “born with the right attributes in the right place at the right time.”

▲

willmarch a day ago | parent [-]

Do you have any solid evidence to back up anything you’re asserting here?

In my understanding of history (pre-enlightenment), people didn’t gather around ideas that were “correct more often” but gathered around ideas and personalities that reinforced their own ignorance, superstitions and biases and were openly hostile to “correct” ideas and truth, especially if those ideas upset tradition or dogma.

I also don’t understand how you’re getting to “violence was not a default until populations grew” since, perhaps, “default” violence was only properly recorded after populations grew and education/writing became more widespread. It’s very likely everyday violence in small groups was simply accepted as “the way things are”and simply ignored, as it often is even to this day.

▲

alchemism 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes I do. In anthropology the surviving “undiscovered” indigenous tribes of the 20th century showed a diverse range of social configurations - matriarchies, patriarchies, everything!

Systemic violence came with the agricultural revolution, food and population stores, the ages of Bronze and Iron. Life was too precious in small bands for intense violence, even against rivals.

[Edit: 100 men armed with wooden clubs is an extremely bloody rugby match. Things generally did not start getting very-very bad until metal weapons were combined with boats or horses.]

Hobbes was a bit wrong it turns out.

	▲	willmarch an hour ago \| parent [-]
		This still feels more like an opinion than facts/proof. I was hoping for actual cited papers or studies, it feels like you just reiterated what you said above but adding "In anthropology..."