Quote from the TIME article: Stereotypes are hard to break, and when it comes to education and gender, parents — and students — stick with a firmly held belief that girls don’t do as well in math and science, while boys don’t have great language and reading skills.
A review of 308 studies involving more than 1.1 million boys and girls who were students from 1914 to 2011 blows apart that idea. For 100 years, according to the data that included students from 30 countries, girls have been outperforming boys in all of their classes — reading, language and math and science. And they’ve been doing it throughout their academic careers, from elementary school to high school. Which also means that the “boy crisis” — the worry that boys have recently been falling precipitously behind girls academically — is also a fallacy. They’ve been getting lower grades than girls for a century.
Even when sexism and misogyny cut off the vast majority of careers and the workforce to women, and girls could really only dream of becoming maybe a nurse, secretary or teacher, they still outperformed boys who had access to higher education, the majority of careers and the workforce. Just based on that you'd think girl's would believe education was a waste of time, leading to resentment and there would be a "girl crisis" where girl's would get lower grades than boys.
So girl's outperforming boys, even in math and science isn't something new. Despite the myth we so often seen propagated in alt right and even progressive men's groups that this is a relatively new phenomenon plaguing boys due to the "feminization" of academia. And when it comes to higher education women get more scholarships so it's cheaper, despite the fact that women are on the hook for almost 70% of the 1.5 trillion dollar student debt crisis. Not to mention the fact that all women will statistically earn less money even with higher degrees than white men.
So what's going on with boys and/or the educational system for the last century and spanning 30 different countries where girl's have been outperforming them?
I'm posting here concerning a locked thread that I'd like to correct and add-on to here. The synopsis of the study mentioned is that humans in paleolithic Eurasia had a high fat/high meat diet but due to many of the animals they hunted having a large amount of lean meat during winter months, they would have an overabundance of lean meat which they would then feed to proto-dogs.
The article from Scientific America changes a few key words from the study that gives a vastly different impression. For example: "High consumption of protein may lead to hyperinsulinemia, hyperammonia or diarrhea. In the worst case excessive lean meat consumption may lead to fatal protein poisoning." versus "Indeed, if humans eat too much meat, diarrhea usually ensues." The former is from the study compared to the latter which is from the article. The study makes it clear that it is exclusively referring to lean cuts of meat that would be far lower in fat than what humans had evolved to eat on a daily and regular basis.
To wrap things up, the study that the article is citing makes no claim that Humans had not eaten a large amount of meat relative to our diet and instead claims the opposite. Those with an impression that the study may have been claiming otherwise is due to how poorly written the article is. The references concerning the evolutionary trait of carnivorism is referring to the digestive ability of carnivorous animals that have a greater ability to digest and thrive off of protein alone when compared to Humans who require greater amounts of fat or carbs. Funny enough, the study also references the fact that dogs hadn't evolved the traits necessary to digest starch in mass until after the neolithic.
I’ve been fascinated by this subject lately and would like to do some more in-depth reading.
Can I just leave the beefalo with a Salt Lick and just wait for him to get domesticated or do I have to ride him and personally feed him everyday?
Sorry if this has been posted before, however I would agree pits have been domesticated, just that theyve been domesticated the same way a Siamese fighting fish was domesticated. Its to be kept single, and in a enclosure by itself.
Some people in Thailand and Malaysia are known to have collected wild bettas at least by the 19th century, observing their aggressive nature and pitting them against each other in gambling matches akin to cockfights. In the wild, betta spar for only a few minutes before one fish retreats; domesticated betta, bred specifically for heightened aggression, can engage for much longer, with winners determined by a willingness to continue fighting; once a fish retreats, the match is over. Fights to the death were rare, so bets were placed on the bravery of the fish rather than its survival.
The fish IS domesticated, but if humans were a aquatic species of Betta-size, they would be terrifyingly dangerous to us as well(likely).
I feel the same way about english bull terriers and boxers. Although less fighty, their companionships qualities are quite poor. My ex had a boxer that would continously and aggressively try to barge down the door when we had sex, and try to pee all over the bed to establish dominance. This dominance and impulsivity trait is interpreted as "sweet and goofy" bit in reality its stuck around because they were also not meant to be indoors as a pet- but to readily attack larger animals in a impulsive and very stupid way. You didnt want a smart boxer that new how to behave in a group or in a home, just to attack what was put in front of it and not think so much about the consequences.
A retriever was a convenience dog that you could keep at home after a hunt or in a boat with you, and if it missbehaved it would be quickly culled. Theres a reason goldies and proper pet dogs rather avoid mean kids than bite them.
How many generations would it take to domesticate raccoons, to the point where they could live in our homes like cats and dogs.
I only ask because I just saw a video of a raccoon in someone’s apartment and it got me thinking. This isn’t for research purposes or anything like that.
>Sometime between around 29,000 and 14,000 years ago, hunter-gatherers navigating northern Eurasia’s frigid landscapes turned wolves into dogs by feeding them lean-meat leftovers.
>That, at least, is a likely scenario that would have benefited both wolves and people, say archaeologist Maria Lahtinen of the Finnish Food Authority in Helsinki and colleagues. In harsh Ice Age winters, when game hunted by both species was lean and fat-free, prey animals would have provided more protein than humans could safely consume, the researchers conclude January 7 in Scientific Reports. People could have fed surplus lean meat to captured wolf pups being raised as pets because the animals wouldn’t have had the same dietary limitations, the team proposes....
>Dogs (Canis familiaris) are the first animals to be domesticated by humans and the only ones domesticated by mobile hunter-gatherers. Wolves and humans were both persistent, pack hunters of large prey. They were species competing over resources in partially overlapping ecological niches and capable of killing each other. How could humans possibly have domesticated a competitive species? Here we present a new hypothesis based on food/resource partitioning between humans and incipient domesticated wolves/dogs. Humans are not fully adapted to a carnivorous diet; human consumption of meat is limited by the liver’s capacity to metabolize protein. Contrary to humans, wolves can thrive on lean meat for months. We present here data showing that all the Pleistocene archeological sites with dog or incipient dog remains are from areas that were analogous to subarctic and arctic environments. Our calculations show that during harsh winters, when game is lean and devoid of fat, Late Pleistocene hunters-gatherers in Eurasia would have a surplus of animal derived protein that could have been shared with incipient dogs. Our partitioning theory explains how competition may have been ameliorated during the initial phase of dog domestication. Following this initial period, incipient dogs would have become docile, being utilized in a multitude of ways such as hunting companions, beasts of burden and guards as well as going through many similar... keep reading on reddit ➡
My headcanon is that all the animals in Ark are domesticated already and live in the wild like feral horses, cats, and pigeons.
We already know they’re engineered just for the Ark and aren’t like, time traveled to be there - a ton of the animals never existed and the ones that did are largely inaccurate, like dilos, dire wolves, iguanadons, etc being radically different sizes than IRL. They all even have their own scientific names.
Domestication is a genetic process far easier than changing size or shape - it can be done with no technology at all - and the effects are: domestic animals have lower flight distance, higher tolerance for other animals, less/weaker survival instincts, more affinity for humans, neotenized (babyish, eg the sheep’s huge eyes) appearances and behaviors, sometimes developing human behaviors like frequent vocalization and positive eye contact (shown in Ark with many of the very cute and humanlike level up animations, constant noise, and head tracking), less need for space and territory, easier to control, more frequent, easy, and productive breeding, and more varied colors and patterns. All of this can be seen in the Ark dinos and would make sense in-universe to allow them to live in such small arks.
Most importantly, feral domesticated animals can be tamed, even as adults, where wild animals often can’t be tamed even if hand-raised from infancy - once they start puberty it’s really a tossup as to whether or not they still want to be a pet as an adult, and they usually don’t.
I think there should be domestication to go along with farming. Farms should also be more organized because they are too disorderly when you look at them.
• Cows: domesticated for meat, milk and leather.
• Sheep: domesticated for wool and meat.
• Horses: domesticated for transportation, trade and war.
• Wolves: when domesticated, becomes a dog wherein they act as guardians and are able to help in hunting.
Also trading should be more expanded upon where they also trade food, resources and even weapons. It depends on what they lack or are in abundance. Like for example, a kingdom abundance with food could trade with a kingdom where there is little food. Gold is used as currency to trade in the whole world.