The reason we exist!

[iconoclast95!]

Ok, so this is an explanation for why apes evolved into humans.

Before I post this, does anyone want to know?

 

[SignalCobra]

Sure, I’m curious. Always up for a good explanation.

 

[iconoclast95!]

I have attached 2 papers that I am in the process of getting published. Each paper is 90% complete.

 

[Hadoblado]

Nice. Interesting stuff even if I'm generally skeptical of this area. Are you working for an academic institution?

Man we are getting spoiled by new contributors atm.

Are you looking for criticism or just to share the ideas with curious minds?

 

[iconoclast95!]

Nice. Interesting stuff even if I'm generally skeptical of this area. Are you working for an academic institution?

Man we are getting spoiled by new contributors atm.

Are you looking for criticism or just to share the ideas with curious minds?

Critisism would be great!

 

[Hadoblado]

Alright. My background is in mostly psychology with a bit of neuroscience. I'm currently completing my masters of teaching. My tendencies are strongly toward the empirical, which is important when in fields for which evidence is often overstated.

Every time someone writes "links to" without further elaboration, I'm put on high alert for either that claim being weak, or the author not understanding the mechanisms behind the claim they're making. If they say "may link" or something to that effect, I dismiss it completely. "Associated with" is also on this list.

It really depends who your audience are, but I'm not the only one that thinks like this (I got railed for this when writing my thesis on motor inhibition by multiple people).

So in The Antigravity Primate. I read your intro slowly and it was really engaging. You walk me through an area I don't know anything about and you build an engaging foundation. When it gets to the face section however, you make a lot of link claims and this loses me. On the face of it, I just don't believe the claim that contracting a muscle or having a headache results in meaningful cognitive benefits. When I look at the sources these studies were 40 years ago which is ancient history for anything psychology adjacent. I would need to see strong studies to evidence these pretty wild claims.

I'd also be looking for alternatives to your hypothesis. Off the top of my head, bipedalism adjusts our field of view, allowing us to much better overcome obfuscation in our environment. Our planning now involves the environment that is not immediate, while stil requiring us to be part of that environment (unlike birds, for which the solution to all obstacles is to fly over them).

Anyway, that's my two cents. I'm often a bit ruthless when judging other's work, so take this with a grain of salt. I'd be interested on hearing more from you in the future.

 

[iconoclast95!]

Thank you very much for your observations and advice. My writing style is unrefined at present, but will improve. I will slso look for more recent studies.

I guess, just because a claim is proved in a study, it doesnt make that claim persuasive. I lost sight of that fact.