1.) What are the subfields of anthropology? How, specifically, do they provide insight into human behavior? As
you respond, consider and touch on Jane Goodall’s work with chimpanzees, the stone age diet, evidence from
the Otter pipe, and the existence of a postpartum sex taboo. Explain, for example, how the study of linguistics
helps us better understand the role language plays in human growth and development.
2.) Think about what archaeologists do and then respond to the following questions: What is the primary goal
of archaeology? How does archaeology help explain history? prehistory? What are the ethical considerations
archaeologists must make? What can a feature tell us that an artifact might not?
3.) Why do scientists rely on theories? Can a theory change and, if so, why is a theory’s changeability critical to
its value to science? In physical anthropology, a good theory helps us understand what about human growth
4.) In biology, what does evolution mean? What role does mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, and genetic
flow play in the process? What happens to maladaptive traits? How does intelligent design conflict with the
requirements of science? What about when we are talking about culture? Can language or social behavior
5.) What does human variation mean? What role does it play in reproductive success? What role does it play in
adaptation? Use at least two examples from the text to explain its role in adaptation. What does it mean to be
genetically homogeneous? How is race a construct?
Defined as “the sub-set of the selectorate whose support is necessary for the leader to remain in power”, the winning coalition, as shown above in Figure 3, is very important in determining whether a non-democratic regime can survive; the larger it becomes as a proportion of the selectorate, the greater the likelihood of the next most popular regime being able to take power. The size itself is mainly influenced by the type of authoritarian regime, and is particularly small in the case of monarchies, which, in the case of hereditary monarchies, only require the approval of a branch of the ruling family in order to survive. As explained by Bueno de Mesquita et al., “in autocratic systems, the winning coalition is often a small group of powerful individuals. [Thus] when a challenger emerges to the sitting leader and proposes an alternative allocation of resources, [the leader thwarts the challenge since he or she] retains a winning coalition”; the size of which is in an inverse relationship with the likelihood of successful challenge, since fewer people must be ‘bought-off’. In fact, “the Selectorate Theory (Bueno de Mesquita et al., 2005) theorises that it is the size difference between the selectorate and the winning coalition […] that is most important” in influencing the survival of non-democratic regimes. This theory has, however, received much criticism. Largely, the extent to which it is true, that having a small winning coalition is the most significant factor affecting the survival of non-democratic regimes, is dependent on how stable the regime appears to be, since “high political instability should reduce the effect of corruption, because actors have less incentive to bribe a government when it is unlikely to survive”, meaning the loyalty of the ruler’s winning coalition may become less effective. Thus, in reality, if a challenge to power did arise, the ruler may not be able to rely on his winning coalition if they were, in fact, more confident in the challenger overthrowing the incumbent, as in this circumstance it is highly likely that they would switch allegiances. Furthermore, Clark and Stone argue that Bueno de Mesquita et al.’s analysis “suffers from omitted variable analysis [which] can make the results appear stronger than they are. Once this error is corrected, the results are no longer interesting.” This empirically undermines the foundations of the theory which Bueno de Mesquita et al. try to argue.>GET ANSWER