Incoming long reply: I’ve written this at the bottom, but will put this here as well, as I’m aware I will come off defensive and attempting attack.
I am grinning as I write this reply.
I skimmed the article — I notice that the paper does not specify the time frame that culture changes humans. Perhaps the article is talking about something different from what I am taking about. I don’t know.
What I could find, I’ve attached.
View attachment 89711
It says that it can happen between seconds and decades. This is vague to me.
So are we saying that somebody can learn a new piece of information and change in two seconds (which to me sounds magical, but perhaps is true and I simply don’t know? Or it is referring to a chemical process that I cannot feel? I’m not judging the accuracy of the article - I’m pointing out that it’s not made explicit, so I can’t see it).
Or are we talking about how a generation can change their habits around consumption (which sounds more reasonable)?
Or am I completely off base here? I am literally reading the words.
Perhaps there are technical terms that mean something different from colloquial usage? (happens often in philosophy).
And maybe this is beyond the scope of the article, but it doesn’t say which aspects of humanity the culture affects as well.
Is it taking about mating? Learning? Food? Or is it referring to every single aspect of human culture — which would require much more investigation than one paper.
Perhaps I’m missing something, or something is assumed knowledge in the field and they don’t make it explicit. (For example in a math paper they won’t explain the algebra happening between two lines — it is assumed the reader knows).
And again, to make it clear, I am not claiming the article is wrong.
It is simply that I know from experience that technical terms often don’t mean what laymen think, and there are often implicit assumptions made to what the reader already knows. So me literally reading the article and thinking can only go so far. And what I thought, I have written above.
My information on the history of dating comes from Wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating
My assertions on physiology come from axiomatic logical reasoning (which means lack of concrete textbook knowledge on physiology).
Axiom 1: Assume the history of dating according to the Wikipedia is correct, and that dating started a couple centuries ago.
Axiom 2 (which may be wrong): The longer humans have been repeating a behavior, the “deeper” the brain region required for the action is in the brain, and thus the “harder” it is to change. For example, humans have been mating for longer than they were humans. They learned to read and write relatively recently compared to that. So the urge to mate will be stronger, and harder to alter, than the urge (if there even is one) to read or write. And it will be harder to manage the emotions and drives around mating compared to that of reading and writing, since it is older and stronger.
Reasoning from there: Dating has been done for 200 years. Mating (and possibly pair bonding) has been done for the entire history of mankind. Therefore, the drives around mating (and possible pair bonding) are stronger and harder to alter.
I hope you understand what I am trying to say. I don’t know if this will help, but I am grinning as I write this.