The article "The Prehistoric Psychopath" explores the evolutionary puzzle of psychopathy, questioning whether it's a purely maladaptive trait or if it could have offered some advantages in our ancestral past. It proposes that psychopathic traits, such as lack of empathy, manipulativeness, and risk-taking, might have been beneficial in specific prehistoric contexts like intergroup conflict or resource acquisition, allowing individuals to exploit others or seize opportunities without moral constraints. The article emphasizes the complex interplay between genes and environment, suggesting that psychopathy likely arises from a combination of genetic predispositions and environmental triggers, and that its expression and success might have varied across different social structures and ecological niches in prehistory. Ultimately, the article highlights the difficulty in definitively determining the evolutionary origins and historical prevalence of psychopathy, given the limitations of archaeological and anthropological evidence.
Scientists have successfully extracted ancient human DNA from a deer tooth pendant found in Denisova Cave, Siberia, dating back to the Upper Palaeolithic period (19,000-25,000 years ago). By using a novel method that extracts DNA from the artifact's pores without damaging it, they recovered DNA from a woman genetically related to ancient North Eurasians. This breakthrough demonstrates the potential of porous materials like bone and teeth artifacts to preserve DNA and opens up new avenues for studying ancient human populations and their interactions with cultural objects. It suggests that handling such artifacts leaves detectable DNA and may help shed light on their creation, use, and ownership within past societies.
Hacker News users discussed the implications of recovering ancient human DNA from a 25,000-year-old pendant, focusing on the potential of this method for future discoveries. Some expressed skepticism about contamination, questioning how the DNA survived so long in a porous material. Others highlighted the significance of retrieving DNA from handled objects, opening possibilities for understanding social structures and individual interactions with artifacts. The innovative technique used to extract the DNA without destroying the pendant was also praised, and several users speculated about the stories this discovery could tell about the pendant's owner and their life. The ethical implications of handling such artifacts were briefly touched upon. Several commenters also compared the methodology and findings to similar research involving ancient chewing gum.
Scientists have extracted ancient DNA from a 20,000-year-old deer-tooth pendant found in Denisova Cave, Siberia. The DNA, primarily from a woman, likely originated from skin cells shed during the pendant's creation or wear. This marks the first successful extraction of ancient human DNA from such an artifact and offers a new method for studying prehistoric populations and the use of personal ornaments without destructive sampling of skeletal remains. Researchers compared the woman's genome to other ancient individuals, determining she was genetically related to a population known as Ancient North Eurasians, who lived in Siberia during the same period. The study reveals valuable information about the pendant's owner and provides a glimpse into the lives of people living during the last Ice Age.
HN commenters were fascinated by the process of extracting DNA from a porous material like the deer tooth pendant. Several expressed amazement at the preservation of the DNA and the ability to link it to a specific individual after 20,000 years. Some discussed the implications for understanding ancient human migration and social structures, while others questioned the potential for contamination and the reliability of the dating methods. A few commenters jokingly speculated about the possibility of Jurassic Park-like scenarios arising from ancient DNA extraction, while others focused on the impressive scientific achievement itself. A compelling comment pointed out the inherent sexism in automatically assuming the pendant maker was female, given that tools and adornments are not gender-specific. Others wondered if the DNA might have been deposited via saliva or sweat, rather than blood, during the creation or wearing of the pendant.
Summary of Comments ( 4 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43408761
HN commenters largely discussed the methodology and conclusions of the linked article. Several questioned the reliability of extrapolating psychopathic traits based on sparse archaeological evidence, arguing that alternative explanations for prehistoric violence exist and that applying modern psychological diagnoses to ancient humans is problematic. Some debated the definition and evolutionary role of psychopathy, with some suggesting it may be a social construct rather than a distinct disorder. Others pointed out that while some individuals might exhibit psychopathic traits, classifying an entire group as psychopathic is misleading. The difficulty in distinguishing between instrumental and reactive violence in archaeological records was also a recurring theme, highlighting the limitations of inferring motivations from prehistoric remains. A few commenters focused on the article's presentation, criticizing its length and suggesting ways to improve readability.
The Hacker News post titled "The Prehistoric Psychopath" (linking to an article on Works in Progress) generated a moderate discussion with several interesting points raised in the comments section.
Several commenters engage with the core premise of the article, which explores the idea of psychopathy as an evolutionary strategy. One commenter questions the evolutionary advantage of psychopathy in prehistoric times, particularly given the importance of social cohesion in hunter-gatherer societies. They suggest that the article's argument might be flawed due to its reliance on modern interpretations of psychopathy applied to prehistoric contexts. Another commenter challenges the idea that psychopathy is solely a genetic trait, highlighting the role of environmental factors and pointing out that even with a genetic predisposition, psychopathy wouldn't necessarily manifest in every individual. They also suggest that traits associated with psychopathy could be beneficial in certain limited contexts, offering a nuanced perspective on the potential evolutionary pressures at play.
Another thread of discussion centers around the definition and understanding of psychopathy itself. One commenter emphasizes the complexity of the term, arguing that it encompasses a broad spectrum of behaviors and shouldn't be reduced to a simple binary categorization. This aligns with another comment questioning the utility of applying modern diagnostic criteria to individuals in prehistoric societies, emphasizing the difficulties in reconstructing past mental states. Another commenter highlights the distinct difference between primary and secondary psychopathy, pointing out that primary psychopathy might indeed have evolutionary roots while secondary psychopathy is more likely a result of adverse environmental influences.
Some commenters offer alternative explanations for behaviors that might be interpreted as psychopathic in prehistoric contexts. For example, one commenter suggests that apparent cruelty or violence might be driven by practical necessities like resource competition or territorial defense, rather than inherent psychopathic traits. Another commenter explores the potential for misinterpretation of archaeological evidence, cautioning against projecting modern moral frameworks onto past societies and emphasizing the challenges in understanding the motivations behind prehistoric actions.
Finally, a few comments focus on the article's methodology and presentation. One commenter criticizes the article for being too speculative and lacking sufficient evidence to support its claims. Another points out the need for interdisciplinary approaches to understand complex phenomena like psychopathy, emphasizing the importance of integrating perspectives from fields like anthropology, psychology, and genetics.
Overall, the comments on the Hacker News post offer a diverse range of perspectives on the article's central argument, challenging its assumptions, exploring alternative interpretations, and raising important questions about the nature of psychopathy and its potential evolutionary origins. While no single consensus emerges, the discussion provides a valuable platform for critical engagement with the topic.