Why did men evolve map-reading skills? They were PAID BY BONK - study The reason men refuse to ask for directions when lost isn't down to pig-headed stubbornness, but rather a hard-wired evolutionary instinct which has developed so they can, err, get more sex – say anthropologists. Students with clipboards from the University of Utah interviewed dozens of members of the Twe and Tjimba tribes in …
Estimates indicate that 10,000 years ago the human population of the entire world was about 5 million. If you're going on a reasonable length journey away from your own population center there isn't likely anyone to ask for directions until you get where you're going, e.g. the next population center. It might be wise to avoid any hunting parties along the way since they may be hunting long pork which would certainly change your travels for the worse.
A man who could range further, and get back home safely, would be better at hunting game animals and bringing food back and also be a sought after leader of hunting groups. Such a man would be a more attractive mate than less skilled men and hence have more women desiring him.
Yeah, there's a good deal of correlation not necessarily being causation. Another study a few years back (cited in The Economist) of tribes in Central America correlated foraging with gender: men go further, find new places but are less efficient as a result; women systematically forage the local area (and like in the proverbial supermarket) know where everything is.
I suspect that a lot of the hunter gatherer differences are down to the fact that men get more practice at the spacial awareness stuff because they're more expendable to the tribe (how many men does it take to re-populate the tribe in one generation vs how many women) thus are freer/compelled to take on the more dangerous tasks of ranging and locating new resources. While the women get to learn the area that they live in more, and are thus better at gathering the resources than the men.
That would be the most obvious, and actually generally assumed, proposition. Especially since primitive man ran more on a social structure as the modern apes, and nigh-on all species of monkey, which means you actually got a chance to mate if you don't go so far away, and nip in with the ladies before the alpha troop comes back...
However, (modern) anthropology isn't, unless sex or sexuality isn't the prime motivator, preferably from a modern Feminist point of view. This is why nowadays the discipline is classed with the arts, not science.
As far as spatial awareness in females is concerned.. I suspect they generally simply don't much care about that skill... unless needed.. The deadly accuracy of an irate woman with crockery/household implements/assorted sundries on hand is an ancient trope, and can be found in all cultures, and in historical anecdotes dating all the way back to the dawn of the art of writing...
@frank ly:
Sure that may be part of it, but things are a lot more complicated.
@DragonLord:
The testosterone differences between men and women (and also fetal exposure) play a large part in this trait. Within men (and women) the conversion of sex hormone metabolites and how effectively they alter genetic expression and other hormones in the body partially determine innate ability. The expression of this through day to day life, well YMMV...
As Grikath points out (totally jacking Sapolsky) mating success is just as much cunning as being and looking stunning (though the triple threat never hurts chances). I will let his miss-estimation of women's throwing/beating with household objects beliefs stand as evidence of being daft as to why such situation persist in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sapolsky
So far as I know the only non genital/giving birth related thing that's different between men and women and can be proven to be down to sex is the relative strength at the upper end of the spectrum (i.e. men tend to be stronger and can be much stronger than women). everything else could be social/cultural - i.e. nurture
This post has been deleted by its author
such as cultural differences in maths skills
I see the hedging you did there.
Unfortunately, reality won't be denied.
what you would expect if mating was the payoff for travel
We have arrived at the level where NOT mating is the payback for travel, so I'm sure it's gonna even out eventually. Luckily we have electronic maps these days.
But my wife is better at spatial orientation than me; better at working out which bit of furniture will fit in where, better at navigating, better at outguessing with the GPS and generating "route recaculation" messages in an increasingly petulant tone, or so we would like to believe, though, as the hunter gatherer, I am better at foragging for the elusive wild cabbage in Lidl.
Yes, but the OP in his/her rush to be clever forgot to specify council estate leaving it open to misinterpretation. Actually, my first thoughts were of hillbillies who don't even need to leave the house to procreate with multiple partners.
Perhaps, but having children with many men can increase the chance that one of her children will be above average (momma will be taken care of in old age), further, sex with many men both during conception and during the child's life can help secure that child's future. It depends highly on the reality of the given situation, the western and/or monogamous culture is at best half the story of human sexuality and evolutionary pressures that may have delivered current conditions.
This seems to fall under the Sherlock icon's bailiwick. As a lad, myself and friends would go to a town 50 miles from our home turf. Not because the girls were prettier or looser but because we were the strangers in a strange land. Not the homeboys the locals saw and new. Lot's of reasons and always worth the trip.
I note that the research is about NOT having sex with one's mate but with different women.
The guy needs the spacial awareness to keep track: He doesn't want Girlfriend #1 to find out about Wife #1, and especially neither to find out about Girlfriend #2.
If he asks directions, he risks the [Small World] factor to kick in and alert one of the above to his indescretions. He could find himself in a pickle that way...
but I suspect that in a real life hunter-gather society there is a very good reason for not being too keen on asking directions - anyone who knows the immediate area better than you is a likely to be a potential competitor and possibly even an enemy.
Common sense would suggest you don't go and deliberately introduce yourself to such a person.
'men have evolved a greater spatial ability to "benefit reproductively ...'
Supposing this is a direct quote, it's pretty sad that scientists (even if only anthropologists) continue to promulgate the fallacy that evolution is directed to defined purposes. If it's not a direct quote, shame on el Reg for doing likewise.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
