Makes sense if single males are more solitary. Once you find a squad you post up
this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2025
281 points (100.0% liked)
science
17672 readers
512 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's not what the data suggests. Single males weren't necessarily solitary (they would have likely been living with whatever family raised them), and the DNA evidence suggests they would leave whatever family they were part of to join their partner/spouse's family.
These weren't lonely guys finding a mate and moving out of convenience or utility, this was cultural marriage behavior.
Oh man. Is this alpha male theory 101?
What? No? The way I understand the comment at least, it's suggesting that males are more socially solitary. There's plenty of evidence suggesting that women, from a biological perspective, are more heavily tuned towards socialising (e.g. are more adept at giving and recognising subtle social cues, and maintaining larger social networks).
If that is the case, it makes sense that the men, who likely maintained smaller social networks within whatever group (family, tribe, etc.) they came from, would leave that group and integrate with the women group, rather than opposite.
Like... all of them? What is this headline trying to imply?
You should read the article. It's not that long, and how they figured this out is interesting.
I would but I believe journalists should be accountable to write accurate and succinct headlines, anything less would be condoning clickbait
You're right, the headline should clearly have read:
"Based on a DNA study conducted by Dr. Laura Cassidy of Trinity College Dublin and others, assumptions that most iron age Celtic societies were patrilocal have not borne out genetically, which shows that potentially there are time periods where matrilocality is more common, changing views of how women in ancient societies are viewed by modern people studying them, but this is all still early days as the paper has just been published in the science journal known as Nature and the peer review process still has to run its course. And even then, sometimes peer-reviewed science gets overturned, so we can't actually be sure any of this is true until a time machine is invented, which physicists currently think is not a practical possibility (although we haven't surveyed 100% of them on this)."
There. Accurate. Hmm... not all that succinct though.
I guess they should have gone with the title of the paper in Nature: "Continental influx and pervasive matrilocality in Iron Age Britain"
Everyone would have understood it!
It's doesn't have slam in there though. Im not sure who to blame.
Lol gottem
Slammed him really.
Howsabout just putting the word "Some" at the start, to remove all ambiguity?
Is that sentence structure ambiguous?
If you said "Iron Age men fought with Iron Swords" you wouldn't say that statement is clearly false because it's not true of all iron age men.
I mean, I would. I'm sure there were at least a few flint axes still in use
You seem to have missed my point.
In common parlance you don't need to qualify generalisations when it's obvious to the audience that they are generalisations.
Consider a statement like "Australians like to eat Vegemite on toast for breakfast".
It's an absurdity to refute that statement on the basis that it's an unqualified generalisation. It's very obvious to everyone that not every Australian enjoys Vegemite, and that some Australian's probably enjoy Vegemite at other times of the day. The whole point of the sentence is to convey that Australians are more likely to enjoy Vegemite than people of other nations.
If you'd like to spend your life refuting every general assertion on the basis that it's not qualified by saying "some" Australians enjoy Vegemite then I guess you're welcome to do so, but it seems like a very odd proclivity to me.
I miss every point, I'm far too fast
Are you a child physically, or just mentally?
Weren't you trolling on another part of the thread? I already forgave you, but you're back at it with more conversational terrorism. What's with the dark patterns, friend? You some sort of bad actor type?
As for your question, I am neither. I am a genetically modified oak leaf that has gained sentience (unrelated to the genetic modification - that only made me glow in the dark) and manipulated a pack of squirrels to steal a cell phone from a hiker, typing for me in exchange for acorns and the occassional drip of morning dew.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Because people can figure that out by a combination of using a bit of common sense and reading the article in any doubt. And I say "people" even though there's at least one person who can't, and people will understand anyway.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Clickbait is "you'll never believe why these men from the iron age moved in with their..."
Generally something is left out and intentionally worded to make you curious.
A regular headline is meant to convey a single sentence summary, not necessarily covering the why.
Journalists don't write headlines for the most part, editors do. If you think the headline is bad you should email the newspaper, not the journalist, because they probably have no control over it.
And expecting a headline to be both succinct and completely explain the story is an unreasonable expectation. That's why the article is there, to explain what the headline doesn't. Despite what reddit and Twitter would have you believe, browsing a bunch of headlines is not reading the news.
load more comments
(5 replies)
I'm not going to lambast you, but I will point out that reading only headlines is why Alex Jones still has a job and has been able to effectively lie for 30 years.
The article is really easy to understand, and it has details that wouldn't fit or would otherwise be missing context in a headline. I really do recommend reading it. Plus, learning is fun!
Stay curious, and never stop learning. —Forrest Valkai
So, to be honest, I did read the article, but it's still important to hold journalism to professional standards, lest we regress towards the dumb.
What standards is this headline guilty of violating?
It says what the article will be about, which is what headlines are for.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Oh booo you have to read more than one sentence to learn things. The horror!
You seemed to be able to judge me on just one of my sentences, so it seems we're on the level
No, this headline is perfectly good. It's got all the key details. The extra details would make the headline too long.
What does too long mean? Are we rationing attention spans now?
There are character limits. And conventions.
The article has the details. The headline describes what will be in the article. For this article, it works.
load more comments
(5 replies)
How the hell would you know unless you read the article?
Because I am actually a genie, and have foreknowledge on everything ever written. You can ask me anything, but they count as wishes and you've already used one.
No response.
You're not a very good genie then.
hahahahaha!!!
load more comments
(1 replies)
It barely implies anything except "men" meaning at least two.
If only they started the headline with "Some" and removed all ambiguity
It shouldn't say "Some", it should say "British" because if you read the article this seems to be a trend across British iron age communities.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Hell, some modern age men do this too.
Iron, pfft. Makes men weak! Real men use stone!
Just passed around like cattle eh?
A son is a son until he gets a wife. A daughter's a daughter for the rest of her life.
What’re you doing, bro-in-law?