Funny thing is something similar occurs in lab mice. Where a technician is selecting a mouse for cull the more aggressive mice are more likely to be the ones selected. Problem mice who kill their littermates can ruin experiments.
My best guess is that the short snout trait is in linkage with something else that is actually what is being selected upon. At least for racoons.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/raccoons-are-show...
Why is it impossible the humans are not domesticated? Are you making a point about language?
I think this is certainly true. People in cities, where there are high amounts of people around act differently when they are in a small village or in nature with fewer or no people around.
Something something autodomestication...
The guy who kills a family for fun is more aggressive than the guy who execute him. I'm not even sure how you could get to any other conclusion
Edit: I think "most aggressive and independently-minded individuals" needs to be defined further, because, obviously, a human without a tribe isn't going to survive long, but also no tribe wants an unpredictable wildcard. So one can be aggressive, with long term strategic thinking, but also not impulsive so as to become persona non grata.
An aggressive, long term thinking individual (or group) can cull other "aggressive and independently-minded individuals" so they don't develop into threats.
Quite literally not... "executioner: an official who effects a sentence of capital punishment on a condemned person". An executioner is someone who is legally allowed to give death as a consequence of a judicial decision, not simply someone who kills.
Words have meaning an homicide isn't a murder, a murder isn't an execution, &c.
Even in warring countries, or countries without much rule of law, death rates (from all causes) is ~1.1%. Let's say good data is not available, and the real figure is double or triple that number.
An annual death rate of 2% just from executions would be in a society with a super aggressive dictator (or faction, I guess).
For more context, annual WW2 death rates over 5 or 6 years were not as high as 2% per year. Only Poland seems to have been higher.
They also refuse to eat in the trash bins of anybody that drink Cappuccino after 01:00pm in a sign of integration.
Maybe it's just that many of the large aggressive bears living near villages have just been shot or scared away, but the genetics is unchanged and the offspring of large aggressive bears currently living away from villages will have no aversion to trying their luck in the village ?
If there's a range of "how aggressive a bear can be", and it's mostly driven by genetics, and aggression is heavily selected against in the environment? Then you can get a considerable reduction in aggression in the span of as little as a few generations. Bear generation time is what, 5 years? They coexisted with humans for a long time now.
Now, traits with weaker genetic components (i.e. if bear aggression is only 50% genetic) can take much longer. Even more so for traits with low variance, or highly complex traits and behaviors. But evolution isn't always slow. Certain changes can happen quickly - about as quickly as you can apply the selection pressure.
I watched the video ourmandave pointed us to where NessieExplains points out what she says are flaws in the study suggesting raccoons are becoming domesticated:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12983-025-00583-1
The data set and the code used to analyze the data are at https://osf.io/56xcg/overview.
Her criticisms and conclusions may well be correct, but her video is really just her saying her conclusions are correct. She downloaded the data and did her own analysis and points to results in her spreadsheets. It all flies by quite quickly. We have to take her word for it. She also made a snarky comment about this line in the R code:
# 57% Let’s see what we can do to change that!
# what if we remove those pictures that we had issues measuring?
# that would be gbifIDs: 4855527033, 4096474261, 2311326414, 4528316516
# Vector of IDs to exclude - the image quality was too bad after all
ids_to_exclude <- c(4855527033, 4096474261, 4528316516, 2311326414)
She says in the video that she’s an actual raccoon biologist. According to her web site she is pursuing a master’s in biology (nessieexplains.com/about-nessie-explains/) although there is no date on the page, so she may have completed the degree already.
As I say, she may well be correct, but I have no way of knowing.