Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 December 6

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 6

Forest dweller, jungle man, you get the idea...

The concept of people who living in the forest or jungle seems to be a popular theme in stories. Such people live really natural lifestyles. They live in the forest or jungle naked and they eat everything fresh and raw. But is there such a thing as a forest man or jungle man in real life? Dominicrepublican (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Orangutan means "forest man". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course.[1] There are still tribes out there that haven't yet contacted what we laughingly call "civilization". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, that’s not quite what I had in mind. It’s close though. But what I’m thinking about is, are there any “true” forest or jungle people, as in those who completely live and behave like nature’s animals? For example, having no experience of human language? Dominicrepublican (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

People in groups don't live or act like animals. Why would they? Perhaps you're thinking of feral children? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

As to why would they, the answer is because living or acting like an animal is the natural thing to do. Animals don’t cut open their food with blades or daggers, they rip off chunks of it with their teeth. If you’re hungry, all you need is a mouth, no blades or daggers. Dominicrepublican (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be missing some essential connections between facts. Humans and human ancestors have been using stone tools for over 2 million years, including all or almost all the time that genus homo has been in existence. Compared to chimpanzees, modern humans lack large canine teeth, solidly-anchored jaw muscles etc. which make many kind of tool-less eating more feasible... AnonMoos (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I’m sure there were humans who never used stone tools. It is quite possible for humans to eat without tools. Bear Grylls has done it when eating a fresh snake whose head he buried in the sand after decapitating it, and Louis Cole has done it when eating a fresh roadkill rabbit. Dominicrepublican (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Birds, chimps, etc. can and do use tools. So your scenario about living like an animal without tools doesn't make a lot of sense. Humans will create/use them at every opportunity; that's in our nature. We do without tools only as a very last resort (or for a reality TV show). There may be some perverse masochist out that who insists on eschewing tools of any sort, but it's simply not natural for homo sap (and just begging for a Darwin Award). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to the use of tools to cut open food, not the use of tools in general. Dominicrepublican (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Dominicrepublican -- You're still not getting it. Human bodies have been shaped over millions of years of evolution by offloading tasks from the body on its own to the body plus tools. Chimpanzees have very solidly-anchored jaw muscles capable of delivering strong bite force because they do all their processing of food directly with their body (aside from the occasional erratic smashing of nuts with stones). Humans have a weaker bite force because we systematically do processing of food with tools, fire, etc. It's similar with a lot of other things. We don't have fur because we offloaded keeping warm when it's cold to clothes made with tools. If you eliminate fire, language, systematic and intensive use of tools etc., then humans would be at a great disadvantage. A few young and strong carefully-trained individuals may be able to live like that in isolation for a certain time, but it's no way for a human group to thrive and flourish... AnonMoos (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

If a human group can not thrive and flourish without processing food with fire, etc., then are there currently any young and strong individuals who are living in such a way in the forest or jungle naked in isolation in real life? Dominicrepublican (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

You're the one who brought up Bear Grylls; you probably know a lot more about him than I do, since I haven't seen a minute of his show... AnonMoos (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Dominicrepublican -- using language and having control over fire are part of what it means to compose a human group. Without these, humans would have few advantages compared to a number of other species. If you're interested in folklore rather than real science/anthropology, then we have article Wild man... -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems we even have a Category:Uncontacted peoples. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Which confuses me... if no one has contacted these peoples, how do we know about them? (or at least, how do we know enough to write an article?) Blueboar (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Uncontacted Tribe - Human Planet: Jungles - BBC One Bus stop (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

According to Uncontacted peoples, "Knowledge of the existence of these groups comes mostly from infrequent and sometimes violent encounters with neighboring tribes, and from aerial footage." Clarityfiend (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Blueboar -- in the case of the Sentinelese, everybody knows where they are, but they're not integrated into civilization. AnonMoos (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

In the U.S. there are a lot of "survival shows" that purport to demonstrate that people can starve for seven days in almost any environment. To spice them up, some of them become longer and longer, more abusive, more medical interventions etc. I've often longed to see a survival show where the contestants actually get native assistance from local tribesmen, or at least, we get to watch local tribesmen watch the video of the contestants and laugh at them and say "you missed this ... you ate THAT?" I feel sure there is a local technology to every place, and that includes at "primitive" modes of hunting and gathering. Any one know, is there any show in history that has taken that approach? (Honestly I think we're seeing the reverse ... nowadays natives themselves in documentaries always come back from "unsuccessful hunts"; I don't believe they really are that bad at hunting -- I think that the PETA freaks just can't tolerate the notion of one of them succeeding and/or a film crew getting it on tape) Wnt (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

We are now pampered ghosts of our former selves to varying degrees and in a variety of different ways. Bus stop (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It sounds a bit like you are talking about the concept of the savage, which etymologically literally means "of the woods", although doesn't usually imply quite such an animalistic lifestyle as you are talking about. (I'm surprised we don't have an article on the subject, as historically it was an important aspect of how "civilized" peoples saw "the other"). In mediaeval thought, there was also the Wild man, which does seem closer to what you are describing, I don't think is such a common theme in more recent stories. Iapetus (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, if being a “savage” doesn’t usually imply the lifestyle I’m talking about, then that means a savage (and likely modern hunter-gatherers) could be considered a “civilized man” as well. The non-civilized man would be the “wild man”, and the civilized man would be the modern hunter-gatherer tribesman (the “savage”) and businessman. Yes, I think a “wild man” is what I was describing. I guess I’m looking for a human who is not civilized at all. Modern hunter-gatherers, on the other hand, are a bit civilized. Dominicrepublican (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Tarzan fits what you are describing: Gradually he became accustomed to the strange noises and the odd ways of civilization, so that presently none might know that two short months before, this handsome Frenchman in immaculate white ducks, who laughed and chatted with the gayest of them, had been swinging naked through primeval forests to pounce upon some unwary victim, which, raw, was to fill his savage belly. Another Tarzan book mentions the difference between Tarzan and modern hunter-gatherers (the character Mugambi being a modern hunter-gatherer): Mugambi built a fire and cooked his portion of the kill; but Tarzan, Sheeta, and Akut tore theirs, raw, with their sharp teeth, growling among themselves when one ventured to encroach upon the share of another. So wild animals live a natural lifestyle but modern hunter-gatherer humans do not. The only humans who live a natural lifestyle are those who live like Tarzan or Yvain, who, when living as a wild man, lay in wait for the beasts in the woods, killing them, and then eating the venison raw. Yellow Sunstreaker (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Primitive Technology is one of the most successful youtube channels. According to the maker he is probably a "parttime jungle man", if that is good enough for you. --Kharon (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Savage - barbarian - civilisation is covered under the Three-age system. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"Savages" in that sense is basically an old-fashioned way of referring to stone-tool-using hunter-gatherers, and has little to do with what Dominicrepublican is asking about... AnonMoos (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

We actually have a decent article on the term Barbarian and the various "uncivilized" or "primitive" groups called this by the Greeks and Romans. However these so-called barbarians still lived in organized societies or tribes, had their own languages or even literate elites, had metallurgy comparable to their "civilized" opponents, and took part in complex trade networks of antiquity. And of course we have people like the prolific writer Lucian who called themselves barbarians due to their descent, while otherwise assimilated into the Greco-Roman civilization. Dimadick (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

For the distinctions "savage - barbarian - civilization", Lewis H. Morgan's Ancient Society may be more appropriate. Iapetus (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

don't understand this sentence

hello people, today my janitor told me the following: "During the winter months, demand for heating oil tends to be price-inelastic." I have no idea what this signifies. Does anybody have a short explanation? Thanks! --91.5.22.157 (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The article Elasticity (economics) can get pretty detailed, but basically it means people will buy pretty much the same amount no matter what the price is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

That's some highfalutin janitor! Clarityfiend (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I started my career as a janitor, and ended up as a Wikipedia administrator 45 years later. Demand for bread and milk is price inelastic, while demand for new luxury cars is price elastic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying you have't changed jobs in 45 years? Matt Deres (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

More correctly, Matt Deres, I used a literal mop back then and a figurative mop these days. I was far better paid back then, because $3.75 per hour in 1972 dollars plus union fringe benefits is much better than zero dollars and zero cents and no t-shirts recently. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

independent vote breakdown in 2016 US presidential primaries

In some states (rules varied by state and party), independent voters (those not enrolled in a party) were allowed to vote in party primaries. I had no luck finding a breakdown of which candidates they preferred, but I'm sure the info exists somewhere. E.g. I'd like to know whether Trump did better among independents than he did among Republican regulars, or maybe vice versa, etc. Any advice? This is just about major parties--I'm not too concerned about how things went in the minor ones. Thanks. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that, while we might know how many Independents voted in a Republican primary, we don’t know which of several Republican candidates a given person voted for. For example, an independent voter might have voted in the last Republican presidential primary because he supported Trump... BUT another independent might have decided to vote in the Republican primary in a failed attempt to OPPOSE Trump (by voting for another Republican, such as Marco Rubio or Dennis Kucinich). Blueboar (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Voting for Dennis Kucinich in a Republican primary!?! older ≠ wiser 11:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Opps... sorry. Got my losing candidates mixed up... I meant John Kasich. How soon we forget. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• One of the best poll aggregation sites is FiveThirtyEight.com. I would check in their archives first when researching this information. --Jayron32 12:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Two sites with extensive data are [The Green Papers] and [United States Elections Project].DOR (HK) (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Blueboar, sure, we don't get to see the votes since it's a secret ballot, but usually they get reasonably accurate numbers by polling, especially exit polls. DOR and Jayron, thanks, I'll check those links. I think I already did look on 538 but I'll check again. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This isn't really a well-formed subject since in states with open primaries asking for a party's ballot is the only party "enrollment" (or everyone could be considered an independent). Rmhermen (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)