Reddit reviews The Creation of Inequality: How Our Prehistoric Ancestors Set the Stage for Monarchy, Slavery, and Empire

He makes bad conclusions about history because he cherrypicked historical events and made unsubstantiated conclusions from them but I haven't seen much controversy with his claims on anthropology. His claims of how violent tribal society are repeated in other books I've read like The origins of political order and the creation of inequality.

Edit: Here's a askhistorians thread on some of Mr Diamonds anthropological writings.. In short, his work on anthropology is a quite a bit worse than I thought. "The creation of inequality" goes pretty depth about tribal violence and backs up his claims in Guns Germs and Steel so its safe to say that that part is accurate at least.

> Of the many social and technological problems early humans would have encountered, I can imagine few which would not have involved deference to individuals with cultural prestige or privileged relationship to social norms, therefore the recognition of a right of certain individuals to command or decide in certain situations.

This here may be the problem, because it does not conform to what has been studied and observed or described by people who lived in our closest analogues to the types of societies that humans lived in for literally thousands of years. I really recommend reading this book, its very interesting, has pictures even lol, and is a super fun read with very little technical language. I think you may be very surprised to read the details of just how power/prestige worked in these societies. As well as the stories of how hierarchy (of the kind we think of as normal) evolved in different circumstances and how it came to dominate and was also resisted.

https://www.amazon.com/Creation-Inequality-Prehistoric-Ancestors-Monarchy/dp/0674064690

Even if from the outside it might look like a special person 'decided' something and then others obey, expressing power of a sort, that is not how it plays out or is experienced. Above all, it is most important that power NOT be seen to be exercised by a special person. It is a social game that we might say lies to itself about what is happening, but playing the game is what is interesting, how it works and why it is essential. Even if we could make the argument that some individuals in the group do have more decision making power or influence, it is important in the group that this is not evident in a way that exposes the powerful as powerful. Not because people are deluded, but because everyone understands the need to play the game and why they play it. Nothing is more important than the group and minimizing conflict within the group. Nothing is more harmful in the group than special people who think they deserve a bit extra based on a natural or earned ability/prestige.

You also state that the mechanisms of envy don't target authority figures, and I'm not sure where you would get such an idea when in fact it is usually the opposite in societies that are 'fierce egalitarian' in structure. It is precisely the management of envy among the group for those individuals who are smarter, better looking, better hunters, better gatherers, better story tellers, and in other ways unequal to their peers that matters for the group. Nobody is more aware of this than those talented people themselves, they must practice huge amounts of social intelligence to navigate the pitfalls presented by their 'superiority' in the eyes of their society. Boasting is probably among the greatest sins in these societies, and nobody knows the risks more than those who might feel they have reason to boast. Again, the two books I recommended are really fascinating in regards to these questions.

A recommended read

I'm unsure if there are ever been a society void of altruism, but one theory that has been popular with a lot of anthropologists is that human societies began as egalitarian, and that rank and hierarchies are an invention. Under this system, there are mechanisms for maintaining egalitarianism, which include behaviors you might call altruistic or selfless. Joyce Marcus and Kent V. Flannery wrote a book in the last few years called The Creation of Inequality in which they argue for this theory using archaeological evidence. They're both pretty entertaining writers and it's worth a look.

Basically, I think they'd probably argue with you that it doesn't make sense that there would ever been a purely selfish, non-altruistic society.