Margaret Mead, Rachel Carson ‘well-meaning’ women who were easily fooled, distorting the facts to fit their fantasies, sexual and otherwise, responsible for the deaths of million and still counting.
Mead encroached heavily on the scientific method, as anthropology is a highly subjective field. OTH, this character’s thinking seems to have aged more reservedly. But I wouldn’t believe either of them.
You can prove anything you want with science if you know what results you want and no one is willing to contradict your findings.
The entire “global warming” scam is an example.
Science is about prediction, not explanation. Even if it were true, could Margaret Mead’s fanciful account of polynesian sex life be replicated with other primitive people? Again, even if it were true, if there were only one place in the world - her place - where free love dominated, that would be an anomaly and require a special explanation.
Very informative essay - thanks for posting it.
I find it odd, though, that even to this day there is disagreement as to what Samoan values (culture) are. I would think it would take 5 minutes to confirm if promiscuity is frowned upon or freely allowed.
Where was that?
As a non-scientist I’m shocked to see all the shoddy science practiced by the supposed experts. It makes me wonder why do they do it. I believe some are just gullible and some know they are wrong but think that nobody will find out. In other cases the erroneous scientists are just blinded by ideology or peer pressure.
For example, who really cares what Mead thought, or the influence she might have once held? With the advent of genetic research, every one of the soft, subjective interpretive 'sciences' have essentially been rendered obsolete. Like other, pseudo- scientific fields like 'phrenology', it's a waste of time even entertaining the concepts that were once believed.
The real game has moved on to bio sciences. With the capability now available to splice, mix & match genes, it's only a matter of time where experiments can be performed that conclusively demonstrate hard wired triggers. This will be true not only for hair, eyes, skin and other physical traits, but IQ and behavioral tendencies associated with cognitive abilities.
But the true promise - that will defeat all PC - are the commercial opportunities. Forget cosmetic surgery; when elective preferences via gene modification become widely available, Katy bar the door. Here's a bonus question: does anyone want to take a guess what the market driven perception of beauty and intelligence will resemble?
That site is a treasure trove of inquiry.
Thanks for bringing it to the light.
Good article, long read but worth it. “Coming of Age in Samoa” was required reading in my Anthropology class (BA, 1976).
I’ve been little more than a dilettante in anthropology ever since (I found my archeology class more interesting, to be honest), and so missed the Meade/Freeman debate.
Thanks for posting!