Using bethel as an example for an article is a bit disingenuous. It’s not a place that people should really be living any way other than off the land. It’s like saying the groceries on the space station or at everest base camp are expensive.

It’s like 500 km from any roads and thousands from anywhere capable of agriculture as the rest of the world knows it.

It’s also mainly Yupik, and politically, idk how they vote, but they aren’t exactly politically relevant compared to the basically 3 cities with more than 10,000 people in Alaska.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s13293-026-00976-9_reference.pdf

Couple notes on the study.

• weird that they used manual coding instead of eye tracking software.
• this is sold as looking at nature absent of nurture, but I do wonder if there are differences in prenatal treatment of male vs female fetuses that could be at play.
• they are trying to show that females are more interested in the face, and males are more likely to be interested in the mechanical thing, but, they needed the infants to look at the screens for long enough during a trial to count, so they had to retry multiple infants. The percentage of male infants who needed to be retrialed was significantly higher than female, suggesting that the male infants were just more likely to be looking all around rather than just at a specific screen.

The responses were basically heavily overlapping bell curves that only really show a sex difference in aggregate. Of the 120ish subjects they were able to complete, if even 10% end up gender non-conforming, you probably wouldnt have enough to make conclusions.