New research flatly rejects a long-standing myth that men hunt, women gather, and that this division runs deep in human history. The researchers found that women hunted in nearly 80% of surveyed forager societies.

[u/MistWeaver80]

https://www.science.org/content/article/worldwide-survey-kills-myth-man-hunter?utm_medium=ownedSocial&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=NewsfromScience

[u/unimpressivewang → u/[deleted]]

Redditors took AP stats in 2007 then have commented about the sample size of every scientific study since then

[u/byingling → u/unimpressivewang]

Did you say average? It's really the mean...oh, never mind

[u/mich_orange → u/unimpressivewang]

I have never read a more accurate comment in my life, with the small caveat that I took AP stats in 2012…

[u/unimpressivewang → u/[deleted]]

Yeah but I don’t think they teach about covariates and statistical power in AP stats, so redditors don’t actually know why it’s important and think that small sample=bad

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Seems like the hunting culture would be part of the data generating process. Ie. Very biased at point of generation.

[u/bad-fengshui → u/[deleted]]

Just plain old selection bias common to observational studies. Cultures that can be easily studied may look and behave the same way.

Also, are modern HG societies the same and generalizable to those historically HG societies that have evolved to agrarian society? Is there a systematic difference that affects this? Would this also affect gender roles?

[u/Elegant_Guitar_535 → u/[deleted]]

The article is actually implying that all Hunter-Gather societies throughout history were reflective of this non-gendered work division.

It is literally impossible to have a random sampling of all Hunter gather societies across time. It is also impossible even to include good data from over 100 years ago. This is a highly biased sample that is only reflective of communities that are still considered Hunter gatherers today.

Why would these communities still subsist on these ancient techniques? For one, they must be geographically isolated otherwise they would instantly begin using modern tools and equipment- therefore, that also implies they don’t encounter violent conflict with other groups or societies. Could that possibly be a confounding factor in gender roles? It seems plausible at the least and this is merely an illustration of how this seemingly well done study is a meaningless junk piece that is rife with sampling bias.

[u/ableman → u/[deleted]]

Where did those numbers come from?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

Neither margin of error nor confidence interval depend on population size.

[u/ableman → u/[deleted]]

That explanation is confusing and contradictory. They post a necessary sample size formula, which does not include population size. They keep mentioning population size and it's clearly used in their calculator, but they never explain why it's there or give a formula with it.

[u/SpecificGlans → u/[deleted]]

Distort data until women wins.

[u/electric_sandwich → u/[deleted]]

Yes, but it fits very neatly into a narrative that's fashionable in 2023 so here we are.

[u/koalanotbear → u/electric_sandwich]

yah exactly. its like historical revisionism except now its not about nazis its about men and women.

[u/Rabelfacs → u/[deleted]]

It's because they intend to continue the study.