Everyone without exception believes his own native customs, and the religion he was brought up in, to be the best. Herodotus 440bc Over the eons, we humans have greatly increased our transportation abilities. Long ago, we mostly walked everywhere. Then over time, we accumulated more ways to move ourselves and goods faster, cheaper, and more reliably, from boats to horses to gondolas to spaceships. Today, for most points A and B, our total cost to move from A to B is orders of magnitude cheaper than it would be via walking.
(1) I see moral norms as underlying a lot of direct interpersonal interaction, such as when a direct supervisor asks one of their staff to do something, and
(2) I see the institution's activity as being built up out of lots of individual interpersonal interactions like that.
The transportation system relies on there being humans who are capable of autonomous physical movement beyond just walking: It needs pilots who can move their arms and heads, and technicians who can crawl into spaces and swap out parts.
You could imagine a completely roboticized transportation system that could hum along without any autonomously moving humans at all. But our current system still needs a lot of humans who move using the same ancient biological machinery that we've always had.
Likewise, you could imagine a DMV, say, that is completely automated and computerized. But right now we still need a lot of humans in the DMV. Those humans still largely do what they do because of what some other socially nearby human asked them to do. And it is still moral norms that, to a great extent, create the common knowledge that these requests will be met. Without this common knowledge shared by the participants in these countless little interpersonal interactions, the institution as a whole cannot function.
Could you clarify what you mean by a moral norm? It seems to me that mordern institutions rely on moral norms in a way that modern modes of transportation do not rely on walking.
An institution needs the people in the institution to act according to certain expectations. Part of what keeps me doing that work is my awareness that not doing my part would lead to resentment from the people who rely on me. I have, in effect, promised to do something, and doing otherwise would break that promise.
Is this manner in which I am held to my commitments by fear of resentment not an example of a moral norm?
Undoubtedly, threat to human’s survival is an important matter we should consider carefully. Because it concerns everyone’s life, ups and downs of every country, even the world’s peace and prosperity. Get to know opinions of the anthropologist Hu Jiaqi and give common concern to the survival and development of humans.http://www.wboc.com/story/3...
I don't have to admit that, because the paper contained multiple lines of evidence from multiple studies, even if you don't find them all to be relevant. I believe the review of the academic literature.
Even the first video I linked described the landing of the bare foot as "almost" flat. The heel can arrive first even if the angle is flatter than a shod foot would be. Instead of measuring the angle they measured pressure and found that the peak pressure was more evenly distributed for the barefoot vs shod Indians. D’AoÛt cites Lieberman's 2009 paper measuring heel-strike transients in habitually shod vs barefoot runners, but I suppose that would be covered by your acknowledgement about jogging.
All of the references I mentioned -- 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26 -- were in modern populations accustomed to shoes.
The one reference that examines the habitually barefoot is reference 27, which is a paper entitled "The effects of habitual footwear use: foot shape and function in native barefoot walkers."
The authors of that paper are the "they" of your quote. Now, their paper notes that there are structural differences between the habitually barefoot and the shod, but it also notes that when the habitually barefoot walk, their heel strikes the ground first!
"...subjects were instructed to focus on a distant point at eye level while walking, not on the pressure plate. During experiments, the pressure plate was triggered by initial heel contact..."
And, again, look at the 100-year-old Pygmy video.
I think that the "shoes have changed the modern man's walking gait" claim is completely spurious. I will admit, however, that they have changed the way we jog.
No, the review also discusses habitual barefoot walkers. Here is one relevant quote:
"They observed that the habitual barefoot walkers, displaying an anatomically larger plantar foot area, had significantly reduced peak plantar pressures at the heel and metatarsal regions compared to the habitually shod populations. This suggests that due to a larger plantar surface area the habitually barefoot walkers are able to distribute the pressures more evenly across the foot. Additional to the anatomical differences in foot area, the habitual barefoot walkers were also observed to adopt a flatter initial foot placement thus further allowing for distribution of pressures across a larger area."
You are correct that barefoot walkers have feet which appear evolved for that, in that the feet are wider to spread the pressure across a larger surface area.
"Walking barefoot compared to shoes results in a reduced step and/or stride length [13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 26].""Walking barefoot also led to a change in the ankle angle at initial contact with a significant increase in plantar flexion corresponding to a flatter foot placement compared to athletic shoes, sandals and flip-flops [14, 18, 21, 23]"
Without exception, all of the studies referenced were conducted in modern people who are already used to wearing modern (heavily-padded) shoes. When those modern people are forced to walk barefoot, of course their feet hurt, and of course they're more careful!
...So, the way I see it, that review is basically irrelevant. It only indicates that modern people, when forced to go without shoes for the sake of an experiment, walk in a more circumspect manner. This is common sense. You can't take anything else from that review, or any of the studies it cites. There's no way to extrapolate any of them to historical populations.
Take another look at that marching line of Pygmies. They walked normally, in bare feet, in the bush... as they have for many thousands of years. Their ankles and heels are built for it, evolved for it.
https://www.sciencedirect.c...As in the video I linked, this overview indicates that walking barefoot results in a shorter stride length and flatter foot placement.
See: Barak et al., Trabecular Evidence for a Human-Like Gait in Australopithecus africanus, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077687
But, even more to the point, there's a video on Youtube, "African Pygmies in 1938." https://www.youtube.com/wat...They're all shoe-less. They all walk with a more or less modern gait, heel-first. See, in particular, 6:40 - 6:50.
What evidence is there that shoes have fundamentally changed the way we walk? I mean, besides a Business Insider video that's woefully light on details and supporting evidence.
As an aside, the legionnaires of Rome are still famous for how much ground they could cover in a march. Don't you think that they'd walk in as energy-efficient a manner as possible?
I think that Robin's point stands. I don't think that anything suggests that we've become any better at walking, and I haven't been able to find any solid evidence to support the assertion that shoes have fundamentally changed our gait.
Sometimes norms forbid institutions, which blocks innovation in those institutions. That's a case there are complementary choices of institutions and norms. But most institutional innovation isn't blocked like that, so norm change isn't the main cause of institution innovation.
I guess so :). It seems that I was misunderstanding you, then. Sorry for the distraction.
It sure sounds to me like you are agreeing with me.
Because,
(1) I see moral norms as underlying a lot of direct interpersonal interaction, such as when a direct supervisor asks one of their staff to do something, and
(2) I see the institution's activity as being built up out of lots of individual interpersonal interactions like that.
The transportation system relies on there being humans who are capable of autonomous physical movement beyond just walking: It needs pilots who can move their arms and heads, and technicians who can crawl into spaces and swap out parts.
You could imagine a completely roboticized transportation system that could hum along without any autonomously moving humans at all. But our current system still needs a lot of humans who move using the same ancient biological machinery that we've always had.
Likewise, you could imagine a DMV, say, that is completely automated and computerized. But right now we still need a lot of humans in the DMV. Those humans still largely do what they do because of what some other socially nearby human asked them to do. And it is still moral norms that, to a great extent, create the common knowledge that these requests will be met. Without this common knowledge shared by the participants in these countless little interpersonal interactions, the institution as a whole cannot function.
I accept your example as a moral norm, but I don't see why you think that is different from our transport system's reliance on walking.
Could you clarify what you mean by a moral norm? It seems to me that mordern institutions rely on moral norms in a way that modern modes of transportation do not rely on walking.
An institution needs the people in the institution to act according to certain expectations. Part of what keeps me doing that work is my awareness that not doing my part would lead to resentment from the people who rely on me. I have, in effect, promised to do something, and doing otherwise would break that promise.
Is this manner in which I am held to my commitments by fear of resentment not an example of a moral norm?
Undoubtedly, threat to human’s survival is an important matter we should consider carefully. Because it concerns everyone’s life, ups and downs of every country, even the world’s peace and prosperity. Get to know opinions of the anthropologist Hu Jiaqi and give common concern to the survival and development of humans.http://www.wboc.com/story/3...
If not norms, what factors explain the variance in institutions across time and space? Do you have any thoughts on that?
Thank you
I don't have to admit that, because the paper contained multiple lines of evidence from multiple studies, even if you don't find them all to be relevant. I believe the review of the academic literature.
A flatter foot landing is never clearly implied, and there could be other explanations for the measured differences in foot pressure.
Which differences were, I'll add, rather slight. The overall pattern is hardly different, particularly around the heel:
http://i63.tinypic.com/i69p...
Strong claims like "modern shoes have significantly altered the human walking gait" require much stronger evidence than that.
...And this goes double -- more than double -- when there's clearly plenty of good visual evidence to the contrary, e.g., again, those Pygmies.
So what are you going to believe, a slipshod Business Insider video, or your lying eyes?
Even the first video I linked described the landing of the bare foot as "almost" flat. The heel can arrive first even if the angle is flatter than a shod foot would be. Instead of measuring the angle they measured pressure and found that the peak pressure was more evenly distributed for the barefoot vs shod Indians. D’AoÛt cites Lieberman's 2009 paper measuring heel-strike transients in habitually shod vs barefoot runners, but I suppose that would be covered by your acknowledgement about jogging.
All of the references I mentioned -- 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26 -- were in modern populations accustomed to shoes.
The one reference that examines the habitually barefoot is reference 27, which is a paper entitled "The effects of habitual footwear use: foot shape and function in native barefoot walkers."
The authors of that paper are the "they" of your quote. Now, their paper notes that there are structural differences between the habitually barefoot and the shod, but it also notes that when the habitually barefoot walk, their heel strikes the ground first!
"...subjects were instructed to focus on a distant point at eye level while walking, not on the pressure plate. During experiments, the pressure plate was triggered by initial heel contact..."
And, again, look at the 100-year-old Pygmy video.
I think that the "shoes have changed the modern man's walking gait" claim is completely spurious. I will admit, however, that they have changed the way we jog.
No, the review also discusses habitual barefoot walkers. Here is one relevant quote:
"They observed that the habitual barefoot walkers, displaying an anatomically larger plantar foot area, had significantly reduced peak plantar pressures at the heel and metatarsal regions compared to the habitually shod populations. This suggests that due to a larger plantar surface area the habitually barefoot walkers are able to distribute the pressures more evenly across the foot. Additional to the anatomical differences in foot area, the habitual barefoot walkers were also observed to adopt a flatter initial foot placement thus further allowing for distribution of pressures across a larger area."
You are correct that barefoot walkers have feet which appear evolved for that, in that the feet are wider to spread the pressure across a larger surface area.
In the review you link to, they write:
"Walking barefoot compared to shoes results in a reduced step and/or stride length [13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 26].""Walking barefoot also led to a change in the ankle angle at initial contact with a significant increase in plantar flexion corresponding to a flatter foot placement compared to athletic shoes, sandals and flip-flops [14, 18, 21, 23]"
Without exception, all of the studies referenced were conducted in modern people who are already used to wearing modern (heavily-padded) shoes. When those modern people are forced to walk barefoot, of course their feet hurt, and of course they're more careful!
...So, the way I see it, that review is basically irrelevant. It only indicates that modern people, when forced to go without shoes for the sake of an experiment, walk in a more circumspect manner. This is common sense. You can't take anything else from that review, or any of the studies it cites. There's no way to extrapolate any of them to historical populations.
Take another look at that marching line of Pygmies. They walked normally, in bare feet, in the bush... as they have for many thousands of years. Their ankles and heels are built for it, evolved for it.
https://www.sciencedirect.c...As in the video I linked, this overview indicates that walking barefoot results in a shorter stride length and flatter foot placement.
See: Barak et al., Trabecular Evidence for a Human-Like Gait in Australopithecus africanus, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077687
But, even more to the point, there's a video on Youtube, "African Pygmies in 1938." https://www.youtube.com/wat...They're all shoe-less. They all walk with a more or less modern gait, heel-first. See, in particular, 6:40 - 6:50.
What evidence is there that shoes have fundamentally changed the way we walk? I mean, besides a Business Insider video that's woefully light on details and supporting evidence.
As an aside, the legionnaires of Rome are still famous for how much ground they could cover in a march. Don't you think that they'd walk in as energy-efficient a manner as possible?
I think that Robin's point stands. I don't think that anything suggests that we've become any better at walking, and I haven't been able to find any solid evidence to support the assertion that shoes have fundamentally changed our gait.
Sometimes norms forbid institutions, which blocks innovation in those institutions. That's a case there are complementary choices of institutions and norms. But most institutional innovation isn't blocked like that, so norm change isn't the main cause of institution innovation.