Human nature

Person 1: For years scientists believed that we could better understand our human nature by studying our close relatives the chimpanzees. But given that we’ve recently discovered that we are more closely related to bonobos, whose nature appears to be a matriarchal, sexually liberated society, therefore our true human nature must be to be sexually liberated and have only women in power. 

Person 2: Yet you completely ignore the fact that anthropologists admit that they have yet to find any unambiguous matriarchal society where women have all the power in the entirety of our human history, and the fact in which even if you can point to certain points in history where certain things were looked upon more favorably than the are today, what is consistent is that we have always tried to put limits in every occasion on what is acceptable sexually. Which is hardly what I would call “sexually liberated” as far as what I take from your point is basically “anything goes.” So if anything our nature is to be patriarchal with men on top, and to try to find different ways to manage our sexual urges, despite our genetic link to a certain type of primate. 

ok fallacies, mistakes, flaws in argumentation, what are they? Go! 

### Person 1: Logical Fallacies and Flaws

1. **Hasty Generalization:** Person 1 jumps to a conclusion about human nature based on a newly discovered genetic relation to bonobos. The leap from genetic relation to societal structure and sexual norms is vast and requires more comprehensive evidence.

2. **False Cause (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc):** The argument assumes that because humans are more closely related to bonobos, human nature must be similar to bonobo society. Genetic closeness doesn't necessarily dictate social structure or sexual norms.

3. **Appeal to Novelty:** Person 1 implies that the newer discovery of our relation to bonobos is more valid or superior to previous scientific understandings without substantial evidence to back that claim.

4. **Reductionism:** The argument simplifies human nature to just one factor—our genetic closeness to bonobos—ignoring the complexity of human society, culture, and individual variation.

### Person 2: Logical Fallacies and Flaws

1. **Appeal to Tradition:** Person 2 argues that because there has never been a matriarchal society in human history, our nature is not to be matriarchal. This assumes that past societal structures are inherently correct or unchangeable.

2. **Strawman:** Person 2 misrepresents Person 1’s argument by claiming it suggests that “anything goes” in a sexually liberated society. This may not necessarily be what Person 1 was arguing.

3. **Cherry Picking:** Person 2 selectively highlights aspects of human history that support a patriarchal structure while ignoring any evidence of egalitarian or more sexually liberated societies.

4. **False Dilemma:** The argument sets up a false dichotomy by suggesting that human nature must either be patriarchal or matriarchal, without considering the possibility of other societal structures.

5. **Genetic Fallacy:** Person 2 somewhat falls into the trap of associating the validity of an idea with its origin, whether that be the historical prevalence of patriarchy or the genetic link to bonobos.

### Common Issues

1. **Overgeneralization:** Both parties make sweeping generalizations about "human nature" based on limited evidence or examples.

2. **Cognitive Biases:**
- **Confirmation Bias:** Both seem to present evidence that conforms to their pre-existing beliefs while disregarding counter-evidence.
- **Availability Heuristic:** The arguments rely on readily available information (i.e., known societal structures, recent discoveries) without delving into more robust and varied data.

By addressing these fallacies and flaws, the conversation can pivot to a more nuanced and evidence-based discussion about human nature and societal structures.