But as they point out in the article, these are stereotypical emotional reactions, with no characterization of the thought process behind them. You know--someone attacks your country, and you get mad and kill them. There's no complexity or internal dialogues that might reveal the way these emotions came about.

Ahh, simpler and happier times!

True. That was just kind of a starting point.

I agree the article is more about reshaping minds, it skips quickly over the one important fact about how ancient litrature differs from the modern when it mentions the printing press mainly only in one paragraph. And the example it picks to start is not truely fiction at all, but would have been seen as history by the standards of the day. The real difference is that before the press a large library was five books, at a cost of thousands of dollars each in todays money, and those few books had to cover at lot of bases, the bible was a popular book because it covered history, fiction, physics, natural history etc. there simply was not space for a lot of detail, or to create a lot of book types, with a few exceptions there simply was not a difference between history and fiction, which is why it is so foolish to take old books like the bible as factual.

What reason do you have to think that was accurate? They've found all kinds of tools in caves & I've never seen a club. & I get Archaeology Magazine too.

Could that be an ancient ‘old wives tale?’

@Humanistheathen ....no one cares about the feelings of the Millennials except the Millennials.

Sorry, but I disagree. And this article has nothing to do with millenials.

I'm pretty old & I'm here to tell you that everyone in the "old days" had feelings.

@Carin @tnorman1236 It's a shame that so many people on here seem to have had their sense of humor removed.

@SkotlandSkye Sorry. Your statement didn't seem like a joke when I read it. That's the problem with textual communication.