I read once 15 years ago that when a child is born in a modern-day forager group, e.g., in the Amazon with a missing limb, he or she almost always dies because the tribe ostracizes the child unless there are anthropologists or other such visitors to bring the child to ‘civilization’.
The OP instructs me to ask for the probability, but I am actually more interested in short descriptions of pieces of evidence that would move the probability by a factor of >3 or <.333 and how independent that piece of evidence is from all the other piece of evidence.
In summary, I am asking for pieces of significant evidence for or against the following proposition: the child dies before acheiving adulthood and the child would not have died if he or she was not being ostracized.
The one piece of significant evidence I already have is my memory of a post (probably by an anthropologist or anth grad student) on Usenet back 15 years ago when Usenet (and the internet as a whole) was still brainy. Likelihood ratio of this piece of evidence: 18, by which I mean the proposition above is 18 times more likely given that I noticed and remember this Usenet post than it would be if I had not. My likelihood ratio would be considerably lower if I recalled the observation being made by one faction in a polarized debate. My recollection is to the contrary: namely, that it was made by a calm person with no evidence of ideological investment in the question.
I read once 15 years ago that when a child is born in a modern-day forager group, e.g., in the Amazon with a missing limb, he or she almost always dies because the tribe ostracizes the child unless there are anthropologists or other such visitors to bring the child to ‘civilization’.
The OP instructs me to ask for the probability, but I am actually more interested in short descriptions of pieces of evidence that would move the probability by a factor of >3 or <.333 and how independent that piece of evidence is from all the other piece of evidence.
In summary, I am asking for pieces of significant evidence for or against the following proposition: the child dies before acheiving adulthood and the child would not have died if he or she was not being ostracized.
The one piece of significant evidence I already have is my memory of a post (probably by an anthropologist or anth grad student) on Usenet back 15 years ago when Usenet (and the internet as a whole) was still brainy. Likelihood ratio of this piece of evidence: 18, by which I mean the proposition above is 18 times more likely given that I noticed and remember this Usenet post than it would be if I had not. My likelihood ratio would be considerably lower if I recalled the observation being made by one faction in a polarized debate. My recollection is to the contrary: namely, that it was made by a calm person with no evidence of ideological investment in the question.