{"id":5586,"date":"2018-08-18T10:28:30","date_gmt":"2018-08-18T15:28:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/?p=5586"},"modified":"2018-08-18T17:52:51","modified_gmt":"2018-08-18T22:52:51","slug":"the-pinker-effect-prof-pickerings-violent-agreement-with-the-hunting-hypothesis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/2018\/08\/18\/human-nature\/the-pinker-effect-prof-pickerings-violent-agreement-with-the-hunting-hypothesis\/","title":{"rendered":"The Pinker Effect: Prof. Pickering\u2019s Violent Agreement with the Hunting Hypothesis"},"content":{"rendered":"

Rough and Tumble<\/em><\/a> by Prof. Travis Pickering<\/a> is an amazing little book. The author\u2019s ostensible goal was to defend the \u201chunting hypothesis,\u201d according to which hunting played an important role in the evolution of our species. In spite of that, Pickering devotes much of it to furiously denouncing authors who proposed very similar versions of that hypotheses, in some cases nearly a century earlier. I’ve seen this phenomenon often enough now to coin a phrase for it; The Pinker Effect.\u00a0 The Pinker Effect may be described as proposing a hypothesis combined with a denunciation and\/or vilification of authors who proposed the same hypothesis years earlier, often in a clearer, more articulate and accurate form.\u00a0 The quintessential example is Steven Pinker’s denunciation of Robert Ardrey<\/a>, in his The Blank Slate<\/em><\/a>, in spite of the fact that Ardrey had presented a better and more accurate description of the Blank Slate debacle in books he had published as many as four decades earlier. Interestingly enough, Ardrey is also one of the authors who presented a very similar version of Pickering’s hunting hypothesis in a book, appropriately entitled The Hunting Hypothesis<\/em><\/a>, back in 1976.\u00a0 He is bitterly denounced in Rough and Tumble<\/em>, along with several other authors, including Carveth Read<\/a>, who proposed a prescient version of the hypothesis in his The Origin of Man<\/em><\/a> as long ago as 1920. What could explain this counterintuitive phenomenon?<\/p>\n

I can only speculate that what we are seeing is a form of ritual appeasement of the powers that control the ideology, not to mention the purse strings, of one’s tribe. In this case we are speaking of academia, now controlled by aging leftists.\u00a0 I suspect that many of them haven’t forgotten the shame and humiliation they experienced when Ardrey, Konrad Lorenz, and several others made a laughing stock of them back in the 60’s and 70’s in the process of demolishing the Blank Slate orthodoxy. This demolition crew included several authors who were also prominently associated with the hunting hypothesis.\u00a0 Now, nearly half a century later, it would seem that Pickering still doesn\u2019t dare to defend that hypothesis without first performing a triple kowtow before the former high priests of the Blank Slate! The historical background is fascinating.<\/p>\n

First, let\u2019s review the striking similarities between Pickering\u2019s version of the hunting hypothesis and those proposed by other authors as much as a century earlier. Keep in mind as you read down the list that he not only borrows their ideas without attribution or even praise, but actually denounces and vilifies every one of them!<\/p>\n

Early meat eating<\/strong><\/p>\n

Pickering: Like others before me, I argue that hunting was a primary factor in our becoming fully human \u2013 a factor underpinning the completely unique ways in which we organize ourselves and interact with others of our own kind. This means, in turn, that we need to characterize human predation as accurately as possible in order to build the fullest and most realistic understanding of what it is to be human.
\nCarveth Read: But the ancestor of Man found an object for association and cooperation in the chase. Spencer, indeed, says that a large carnivore, capable of killing its own prey, profits by being solitary; and this may be true where game is scarce: in the Oligocene and Miocene periods game was not scarce. Moreover, when our (ancestral, ed.) ape first pursued game, especially big game ( not being by ancient adaptation in structure and instinct a carnivore), he may have been, and probably was, incapable of killing enough prey single-handed; and, if so, he will have profited by becoming both social and cooperative as a hunter, like the wolves and dogs \u2013 in short, a sort of wolf-ape (Lycopithecus).<\/p>\n

Early bipedalism<\/strong><\/p>\n

Pickering: \u201cThe contrasting (in comparison to Australopithecines, ed.) long legs of Homo (including even those of its earliest species, like Homo erectus) probably made it a more efficient bipedal strider than were the australopithecines. But the anatomy of the ape-man hips, legs, knees, and ankles indicates that its species were also quite capable terrestrial bipeds.\u201d
\nRaymond Dart: \u201cIt is significant that this index, which indicates in a measure the poise of the skull upon the vertebral column, points to the assumption by this fossil group of an attitude appreciably more erect than that of modern anthropoids. The improved poise of the head, and the better posture of the whole body framework which accompanied this alteration in the angle at which its dominant member was supported, is of great significance. It means that a greater reliance was being placed by this group upon the feet as organs of progression, and that the hands were being freed from their more primitive function of accessory organs of locomotion.\u201d (Australopithecus africanus: The Man-Ape of South Africa, published in Nature, February 7, 1925.)<\/p>\n

Use of weapons<\/strong><\/p>\n

Pickering: Perhaps in an effort to maintain at least a semblance of behavioral distinction between \u201cus and them,\u201d some scientists still insist on clinging to the remaining (seemingly less consequential) disparities. Hunting with weapons was one such vestige of supposed human uniqueness. But, recently primatologist Jill Pruetz saw to toppling even this minor remnant of presumed human exceptionalism. Using their teeth to sharpen the ends of sticks into points, the chimpanzees of Fongoli, in the West African country of Senegal, fashion what are essentially simple thrusting spears into hollows in trees in an effort to stab and extract bushbabies, the small nocturnal primates who sleep in the holes during the day.
\nCarveth Read: The utility and consequent selection of hands had been great throughout; but their final development may be referred to the making and using of weapons fashioned according to a mental pattern. Those who had the best hands were selected because they made the best weapons and used them best. (The Origin of Man, 1920)<\/p>\n

Debunking of human scavenging<\/strong><\/p>\n

Pickering: Like all scientific hypotheses, these that sought to balance the reality of ancient cut marks with the idea of passive scavenging generated testable predictions. And, time and again, they failed their archaeological tests. In failing, they also effectively falsified the overarching hypothesis of passively scavenging hominins.
\nRobert Ardrey: I wondered from an early date about the popularity of the scavenger hypothesis. If we were incapable of killing large prey animals such as wildebeest and waterbuck, then how were we capable of stealing their remains from their rightful and more dangerous killers? If we had been concerned with only a few stray bones, then luck could account for it. But the impressive accumulations at early hominid living sites must indicate either that we had been even more adept thieves than we are today, or that the great carnivores in those times were unaccountably lazy at guarding their kills.<\/p>\n

Hypothesis of ambush hunting:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Pickering: Along this tactical continuum, hunting from a tree-stand is fairly simple, but it still conveys many benefits to the hunter. In addition to the disadvantaging nature of hunting from above (again, ungulates do not typically look up when scanning for predators), attacking an animal from above also takes the hunter out of potentially harmful physical contact with the prey.
\nCarveth Read: We may, indeed, suppose that at first prey was sometimes attacked by leaping upon it from the branch of a tree, as leopards sometimes do.
\nRobert Ardrey: The rare waterhole, the occasionally trickling stream, were the only places where they (other animals, ed.) could come to drink. So water became a natural trap. We did not need the long-striding foot: we could wait with our ambush for the game to come to us.<\/p>\n

I could cite many other examples. The fact that Pickering devotes much of his book to denouncing these authors who agree with him seems odd enough, but it’s not so surprising if you happen to be familiar with the history of the Blank Slate debacle.\u00a0 Let\u2019s review some of the salient details.<\/p>\n

Konrad Lorenz and Robert Ardrey were two authors singled out by Pickering as paragons of villainy. To hear him tell it, they both must have wracked their brains each morning to come up with a list of bad deeds they could do that day. Oddly enough, it happens that they were also the twin betes noire<\/em> of the Blank Slaters of old. They were loathed and hated, not because of anything they had to say about hunting, but because they insisted there is such a thing as human nature, and it is not only significant and important, but extremely dangerous for us to ignore. During a period of several decades before they appeared on the scene, it had gradually become anathema for scientists in fields relevant to human behavior to suggest that we were possessed of innate behavioral traits of any kind. Marxism and the other fashionable egalitarian ideologies of the time required it. Instead, reality was ignored in favor of the myth that all our behavior is a result of learning and experience. The result was what we now refer to as the Blank Slate. During the 60\u2019s and 70\u2019s Ardrey and Lorenz published a series of books that revealed to an amused lay audience the absurd nonsense that passed for \u201cscience\u201d among these \u201cexperts.\u201d As one might expect, this provoked a furious reaction, as documented, for example, in books like Man and Aggression<\/em><\/a>, edited by Blank Slate high priest Ashley Montagu, which appeared in 1968.\u00a0 It’s still available for just two dollars at Amazon, and is required reading for anyone with a serious interest in the affair. It didn\u2019t help. The Blank Slate charade slowly began to unravel. As increasing numbers of the more honest members of the academic and professional tribe began to break ranks, it eventually collapsed. Clearly, the shame of the Blank Slaters of old still rankles because, after all these years, Pickering still found it necessary to appease them by coming up with a ludicrously contrived rationalization for claiming that his \u201cgood\u201d version of the hunting hypothesis was different from the \u201cevil\u201d version proposed by Ardrey, Lorenz, and company long ago.<\/p>\n

As it happens, the reason Pickering gives for smearing Ardrey, Lorenz, and the rest, who are conveniently no longer around to defend themselves, is their supposed support for the so-called \u201cKiller Ape Theory<\/a>.\u201d It is commonly defined as the theory that war and interpersonal aggression were the driving forces behind human evolution. It is usually associated with \u201cgenetic determinism,\u201d the notion that humans have an irresistible and uncontrollable instinct to murder others of their kind. None of the authors Pickering denounces believed any such thing. This \u201ctheory\u201d was a strawman invented by their Blank Slate enemies. Its genesis is of historical interest in its own right.<\/p>\n

Raymond Dart is usually cited as the author of the theory. The basis for this claim is a paper he published in 1953 entitled The Predatory Transition from Ape to Man<\/em>.<\/a> The paper is available online. Read it, and you will see that it contains nothing even approaching a coherent \u201ctheory that war and interpersonal aggression were the driving forces behind human evolution.\u201d To the extent that an \u201ctheory\u201d is present in the paper at all, it is just what the title claims; that pre-human anthropoid apes hunted and ate meat. The problem with the paper, seized on years later by the Blank Slaters to prop up their \u201cKiller Ape Theory\u201d strawman, was that it appeared to have been written by a somewhat unhinged junior high school student who had been watching too many Friday night creature features. Some of the more striking examples include,<\/p>\n

Either these Procrustean proto-human folk tore the battered bodies of their quarries apart limb from limb and slaked their thirst with blood, consuming the flesh raw like every other carnivorous beast; or, like early man, some of them understood the advantages of fire as well as the use of missiles and clubs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A microcephalic mental equipment was demonstrably more than adequate for the crude, carnivorous, cannibalistic, bone-club wielding, jawbone-cleaving Samsonian phase of human emergence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

On this thesis man\u2019s predecessors differed from living apes in being confirmed killers: carnivorous creatures, that seized living quarries by violence, battered them to death, tore apart their broken bodies, dismembered them limb from limb, slaking their ravenous thirst with the hot blood of victims and greedily devouring livid writhing flesh.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

To characterize this class B movie stuff as a \u201ctheory\u201d is a bit of a stretch. When it comes to human nature, there is nothing in the paper in the form of a coherently elaborated theory at all. The only time Dart even mentions human nature is in the context of a sentence claiming that \u201crecognition of the carnivorous habit as a distinctive australopithecine trait\u201d has implications for understanding it. Based on this flimsy \u201cevidence\u201d that the \u201cKiller Ape Theory\u201d strawman was real, and Dart was its author, Pickering goes on to claim that,<\/p>\n

Ironically, it was Robert Ardrey, an American dramatist (and Dart\u2019s mouthpiece in four popular books), who provided the voice closest to cool detachment when he abstracted the \u201ckiller ape hypothesis\u201d thusly: \u2018Man is a predator whose natural instinct is to kill with a weapon.\u2019 In no subtle way, predation and aggression were coupled as the ultimate propellants of human evolution.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Here we must charitably assume that Pickering has never actually read Ardrey\u2019s books, because otherwise we would be forced to conclude that he is a bald-faced liar. The theme of all Ardrey\u2019s books, which reviewed the work, not only of Dart, but of hundreds of other scientists, was that there is such a thing as human nature, and it is significant and important. The idea that he was nothing but \u201cDart\u2019s mouthpiece\u201d is beyond absurd. His books are easily available today, and anyone can confirm that fact who takes the trouble to actually read them. In the process, they will see that when Ardrey wrote that \u201cMan is a predator whose natural instinct is to kill with a weapon,\u201d he had nothing even remotely similar to the \u201cKiller Ape Theory\u201d in mind. Pickering himself amply documents in his book that not only human beings but our hominin ancestors were predators, that they killed, and that they did so with weapons. That leaves only the term \u201cinstinct\u201d as the basis for all Pickerings fulminations against Ardrey and the rest.<\/p>\n

In order to pull off this feat, he had to come up with a fairy tale according to which they all believed that humans were driven to hunt by some kind of a genetically induced rage, directed both against their animal prey and other human beings. He, on the other hand, while generously admitting that some emotions were relevant to hunting behavior, prefers a more cerebral version of hunting behavior characterized by cool calculation rather than emotion. This is really the only significant difference he comes up with between their version of the hunting hypothesis and his own, and apparently is the basis of his conclusion that they were \u201cevil,\u201d whereas he is \u201cgood.\u201d According to Pickering, those earlier, \u201cevil\u201d proponents of the hunting hypothesis believed in a version of hunting behavior that was actually more characteristic of chimpanzees. He goes to a great deal of trouble to distinguish their \u201cemotional\u201d style hunting with our own, \u201ccerebral\u201d version. To quote from the book,<\/p>\n

Expertise in hunting the large, warily dangerous prey of human foragers and cashing in on its concomitant evolutionary rewards does not mature from the hell-bent approach employed by chimpanzees to dispatch their prey. Application of brute physicality is an efficient means for chimpanzees to kill because they hunt in groups, they concentrate on much smaller animals than themselves, and the rely on their superhuman strength and agility to overpower their victims\u2026 A human has no hope of out-muscling, out-running, or out-climbing his typical prey, but, if his mind stays clear, he can absolutely count on out-thinking those animals.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u2026all the brain power and fine motor control in the world aren\u2019t worth a damn to a human hunter if his brain\u2019s commands are overridden by emotion. Clear thinking in survival situations \u2013 and what is a hunting and gathering life if not a daily struggle for survival? \u2013 is dependent on control of emotion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

General emotional control in hominins may not have yet developed by the time of Homo erectus. But, the archaeological record of Homo erectus implies strongly that the species applied emotional control, at least situationally, when it hunted\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So much for Pickering\u2019s version of the difference between his ideas and the \u201cKiller Ape Theory\u201d he attributes to Ardrey, Lorenz, et. al. Even as it stands it\u2019s a pathetic excuse, not only for failing to attribute the many \u201coriginal\u201d ideas in his book about human hunting to the virtually identical versions presented by Ardrey in his The Hunting Hypothesis<\/em>, not to mention years earlier by Carveth Read in his The Origin of Man<\/em>, but for actually denouncing and vilifying those authors. However, the \u201cdifference\u201d itself is imaginary, as can be easily seen by anyone who takes the trouble to read what Ardrey and the rest actually wrote.<\/p>\n

Pickering\u2019s deception is particularly obvious in the case of Lorenz. He made it perfectly clear that he didn\u2019t associate Pickering\u2019s version of \u201cemotion\u201d with hunting behavior. Indeed, he was dubious about associating “aggression” with hunting at all.\u00a0 For example, in On Aggression<\/em><\/a>, he wrote,<\/p>\n

In yet another respect the fight between predator and prey is not a fight in the real sense of the word:\u00a0 the stroke of the paw with which a lion kills his prey may resemble the movements that he makes when he strikes his rival, just as a shot-gun and a rifle resemble each other outwardly; but the inner motives of the hunter are basically different from those of the fighter.\u00a0 The buffalo which the lion fells provokes his aggression as little as the appetizing turkey which I have just seen hanging in the larder provokes mine.\u00a0 The differences in these inner drives can clearly be seen in the expression movements of the animal:\u00a0 a dog about to catch a hunted rabbit has the same kind of excitedly happy expression as he has when he greets his master or awaits some longed-for treat. From many excellent photographs it can be seen that the lion, in the dramatic moment before he springs, is in no way angry.\u00a0 Growling, laying the ears back, and other well-known expression movements of fighting behavior are seen in predatory animals only when they are very afraid of a wildly resisting prey, and even then the expressions are only suggested.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In none of his books did Lorenz ever suggest that hunting behavior in man was any different from that of other hunting animals.\u00a0 That which Ardrey actually wrote on the subject, as opposed to the “killer ape theory” flim flam that is constantly and falsely attributed to him, is much the same.\u00a0 For example, from The Hunting Hypothesis<\/em>, he discusses what might have given us an advantage as nascent predators as follows,<\/p>\n

Yet we had some advantages.\u00a0 There was the innocence of animals, such as Paul Martin has described in North American prey pursued by skilled but unfamiliar intruders from Asia; our Pliocene victims could only have been easy marks.\u00a0 There was our ape brain, incomparably superior to that of any natural predator.\u00a0 If the relatively unintelligent lioness can practice tactical hunting and plan ambushes as Schaller has described, then our talents must have been of an order far beyond lion imagination.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In his Serengeti studies George Schaller shows that any predator taking his prey is cool, calculating, methodical.\u00a0 It is a kind of aggressive behavior radically unlike his defense of a kill against competitors.\u00a0 Then there is overwhelming emotion, rage, and sometimes a lethal outcome unlike normal relations within a species.\u00a0 Such would have been the situation between competing hunters in glacial Europe.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Pickering anointed poor Carveth Read and other early authors honorary proponents of the “killer ape theory” even though they were long dead before Dart ever published his paper.\u00a0 At the beginning of chapter 3 he writes,<\/p>\n

The same nauseating waves of cannibalism, unquenchable bloodthirst, cruel misogyny (specifically), and raging misanthropy (generally) that course through the writings of Dart and Ardrey also typify the pre-Dartian ramblings of Morris, Campbell and Read.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Dart may have been a bit over the top in his “seminal” paper, but the above is truly unhinged. Pickering must imagine that no one will take the trouble to excavate Read’s The Origin of Man<\/em> from some dusty library stack and read it.\u00a0 In fact, it can be read online<\/a>.\u00a0 Even out of the context of his time, this furious rant against Read is truly grotesque.\u00a0 Read the first few chapters of his book, and you will see that his hypothesis about hunting behavior in early man actually came quite close to the version proposed by Pickering.<\/p>\n

In his eagerness to virtue signal to the other inmates of his academic tribe that his version of the hunting hypothesis is “good” as opposed to the “evil” versions of the “others,” Pickering actually pulls off the amusing stunt of using now irrelevant studies once favored by the Blank Slaters of old because they “proved” early man didn’t hunt, to attack Dart, supposed author of the “killer ape theory,” even though the same studies undermine his own hypotheses.\u00a0 In particular, he devotes a great deal of space to describing studies done by C. K. Brain<\/a> to refute Dart’s claim that statistical anomalies in the distribution of various types of bones in South African caves were evidence that certain bones had been used as weapons and other tools. It was masterful work on cave taphonomy, in which Brain explored the statistics of bone accumulations left by animals as diverse as hyenas, leopards, owls and porcupines.\u00a0 Unfortunately, he chose to publish his work under the unfortunate title; The Hunters or the Hunted<\/em><\/a>? The work was immediately seized on by the Blank Slaters as “proof” that early man hadn’t hunted at all, and was really a meek vegetarian, just as Ashley Montagu and his pals had been telling us all along.\u00a0 Brain was immediately anointed a “good” opponent of hunting, as opposed to the “evil” men whose ideas his work supposedly contradicted.\u00a0 Pickering apparently wanted to bask in the reflected glory of Brain’s “goodness.”<\/p>\n

Of course, all that happened in the days when one could still claim that chimpanzees were “amiable vegetarians,” as Ashley Montagu put it.\u00a0 It’s worth noting that when Jane Goodall began publishing observations that suggested they aren’t really all that “amiable” after all, she was vilified<\/a> by the Blank Slaters just as viciously as Pickering has vilified Dart, Ardrey, Lorenz and Read.\u00a0 Now we find Pickering trotting out Brain’s book even though it “disproves” his own hypotheses.\u00a0 Meanwhile it has been demonstrated, for example, in careful isotopic studies of Australopithecine teeth, that the species Dart first discovered ate a substantial amount of meat after all, as he had always claimed.\u00a0 Clearly, they were also occasionally prey animals.\u00a0 So were Neanderthals, as their remains have been found in predator bone accumulations as well.\u00a0 That hardly proves that they didn’t hunt.<\/p>\n

In short, if you like to read popular science books, beware the Pinker Effect.\u00a0 I note in passing that C. K. Brain never stooped to the practice of “proving” the value and originality of his own work via vicious ad hominem<\/em> attacks on other scientists.\u00a0 He was Dart’s friend, and remained one to the end.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\tTweet<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Rough and Tumble by Prof. Travis Pickering is an amazing little book. The author\u2019s ostensible goal was to defend the \u201chunting hypothesis,\u201d according to which hunting played an important role in the evolution of our species. In spite of that, Pickering devotes much of it to furiously denouncing authors who proposed very similar versions of … Continue reading “The Pinker Effect: Prof. Pickering\u2019s Violent Agreement with the Hunting Hypothesis”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[281,46,101,181,48,105,247,297,166,28,272,198],"tags":[193,406],"class_list":["post-5586","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-aggression","category-amity-enmity-complex","category-anthropology","category-blank-slate","category-evolution","category-evolutionary-psychology-2","category-genetic-determinism-2","category-historical-revisionism","category-human-evolution","category-human-nature","category-hunting-hypothesis","category-robert-ardrey","tag-blank-slate-2","tag-pinker-effect"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pwEq0-1s6","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5586","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5586"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5586\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5599,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5586\/revisions\/5599"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5586"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5586"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5586"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}