Talk:Savannah hypothesis

560 MYA

There were no hominids 560 million years ago, nor were there any woodlands for them to walk out of. Did the author mean "5 to 6 million years?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.52.135 (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No, actually. For starters, it's referring to hominines, not hominids. I remember being startled by the number, but it was pulled from a source. 5-6MYA would be inaccurate as well, since the subfamily dates back to 8-10MYA by most estimates (nor would it be more accurate to refer to hominids this way, as they date back even further, to about 15-20MYA). It may have been a typo in the source, an older source with a since-discredited view, or a simple mistake, but I recall confirming it twice already (once when reading it). I seem to remember this exact issue coming up once before, but I cant' recall where.

Note that this may be a mistake of re-phrasing, i.e. the 560MYA number is correct, but it didn't refer to hominines, but their ancestors. I'm checking the sources now to see if there's something I can do to fix it, because I'd rather not just go with OR because I know a source is wrong, without a better source to correct it with. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know exactly what happened (I still can't remember the first go-around in much detail), but I do know that one of the sources supports the claim that hominins (distinct from hominines) arose 5-6MYA, so I'm going to change it to that, as you suggested. I know the 560MYA source was explicit, but I'm not going to quibble over details when they make the phrasing of the lede go off on a time period by ~550 million years. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Savanna(h) Hypothesis in evolutionary psychology

There's also a quite different (but related) "Savannah Hypothesis" in evolutionary psychology. It's the idea that we now have a preference for green, Arcadian landscapes, watering holes, manicured gardens, golf courses, etc based on our transition to the Savannah. This is the 1980s/1990s work of people like Gordon Orians on "evolved responses to landscape" etc, Judith Heerwagen, the experiments of Balling and Falk, etc etc. It either needs a mention in this article or a whole, separate disambiguated article along the lines "Savannah Hypothesis (evolutionary psychology)". Relevant primary sources would be...

• Orians, G. (1980). Habitat selection: General theory and applications to human behavior. In J. S. Lockard (Ed.), The evolution of human social behavior (pp. 49–66). Chicago: Elsevier.
• Orians, G. (1986). An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In E. C. Penning-Rowsell & D. Lowenthal (Eds.), Landscape meaning and values (pp. 3–25). London: Allen & Unwin.
• Orians, G., & Heerwagen, J. H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: University Press.
• Balling, J.D. and Falk, J.H. (1982) Development of Visual Preference for Natural Environments. Environment and Behavior, 14, 5-28.

and also mentioned at length by people like Steven Pinker, Denis Dutton, et al - as secondary sources. 82.71.0.229 (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Reasonable secondary-source summary is Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind by David Buss, T&F, 2015 edition, p83-85 https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Evolutionary_Psychology/c85WCgAAQBAJ (though that would need balancing with alternative viewpoints). 82.71.0.229 (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

As above, counterbalancing secondary source could be various of the chapters in Alas Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology by Hilary Rose, Steven Rose (eds), Random House,2010 (ISBN: 9781446412176, 1446412172, https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Alas_Poor_Darwin/HQthCC191y8C). Several of the authors there argue against the Savannah hypothesis. 82.71.0.229 (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)