MetaJess

it was good to take some time to look it up though, i did a thorough enough job to be certain about this and can now carry on without fearing that i might be missing out

I'm curious to hear your thoughts

Do you think it's factually wrong or just tonally or what? As a story for how people relate to each other it sounds ok/not controversial to me

... it's factually wrong small tribes have long histories of trade and war with each other, way before agriculture showed up. ingroup x outgroup is so deeply ingrained into our psyche the idea that there ever was a tribe like that is simply ridiculous

Um yes this paragraph says bonds are strong within the group but if a tribe meets another group they fight... (or move on)

they're different paragraphs a 150 persons tribe is an inbred tribe lines between cooperation and conflict are not clear-cut i really don't feel like listing all the ways in which this coherence/conflict, defection/loyalty dichotomy misses key aspects of human socialization

That’s ok. 150 is mentioned because it’s the Dunbar number. I’d be curious to hear about harder evidence that tribes were actually much bigger than this.