Comments on: We agree it’s WEIRD, but is it WEIRD enough?

By: JD

JD — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:16:36 +0000

That’s all well and good, but the goal of psychological research is often to identify innate tendencies and functions of the human mind/psyche. If, and it seems this is indeed the case, other cultures vary tremendously from ours in these areas it means that behavior patters or other traits that we originally thought were innate are not, which is important information for any field that claims to be discovering innate tendencies.

It is also bizarre to try to argue that we should consider westerners as being more normal simply because they are more wealthy. What sort of logic is that? How arbitrary.
There is nothing defeatist in noting that among human beings as a whole, westerners comprise a minority and at times display atypical behavior. It is not a value judgment.

By: Bias in SONA « Bloggenrolla

Bias in SONA « Bloggenrolla — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:25:38 +0000

[...] This idea was originally created by Henrich et. al. A summary of their paper can be found here (http://neuroanthropology.net/2010/07/10/we-agree-its-weird-but-is-it-weird-enough/). Coupling the implications of sampling bias with the assumptions of “WEIRD” students, [...]

By: There’s Weird and Then There’s WEIRD |

There’s Weird and Then There’s WEIRD | — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 16:10:30 +0000

[...] from theSource here. This entry was posted in Idea Soup and tagged psychology. Bookmark the permalink. ← If [...]

By: Techniques of the Body, Indeed - And WEIRD | Among Others

Techniques of the Body, Indeed - And WEIRD | Among Others — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 14:04:14 +0000

[...] This is intriguing research, but could benefit from some anthropological input! (Couldn’t everything?) It immediately bringing two things to my mind: Marcel Mauss’ “Techniques of the Body,” and the idea of “WEIRD” research subjects, covered well by the Neuroanthropology blog. [...]

By: Anthropology is Necessary - Living Anthropologically

Anthropology is Necessary - Living Anthropologically — Tue, 17 May 2011 14:04:02 +0000

[...] has also been made by Clancy with regard to the hormonal surveys, and by Greg Downey in “We agree it’s WEIRD, but is it WEIRD enough?” But here’s the deal–anthropology does not have to redo our work because we did [...]

By: Ten Current Items, March 1-8 | Living Anthropologically

Ten Current Items, March 1-8 | Living Anthropologically — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 03:39:25 +0000

[...] 4 March: Excellent work by Kate Clancy, “Mate magnet madness,” taking apart the silliness published as “The threatening scent of fertile women.” John Tierney and evolutionary psychology are a bad combination. My comment: Very nice analysis and taking-apart of some shaky premises. Like commenter “roese,” I agree that something seemed suspicious about Tierney but this makes it clear. With regard to your very nice “I have a real problem with continuing to use this population [undergraduates] to make statements of universality for all humans,” readers may want to check out the article “The weirdest people in the world?” or, perhaps better yet, the great review by Greg Downey “We agree it’s WEIRD, but is it WEIRD enough?” [...]

By: Pennyowl

Pennyowl — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 04:41:43 +0000

Great discussion. My only quibble is the suggestion that the WEIRD and the ‘small scale’ might overlap in the rather favorable set up described. It is the total infrastructure that matters. Health facilities, manufactured goods, educational, law enforcement etc – growing a few veggies is a mere biofilm on the basic machinery. Just the concept of a land title for example can make a real difference – probably something we all take for granted. (if we’re weird of course)

I thought the ideas about physical differences very telling – activities of the body must affect psychology. Have a look at ‘Haiti Under Construction’ in youtube – first instinct might be to laugh, next to groan or deride for ignorance but eventually you may come to admire.

By: Leslie Martin

Leslie Martin — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:26:55 +0000

“But” at the end of a sentence is a quirky way of using “though” – e.g. “I don’t think much of that article but!” equates to “I don’t think much of that article though.”
“But” is plosive and ‘stronger’ than “though”, and, as such, it conveys a measure of diffidence without an accompanying eagerness to examine the grounds for that diffidence: the diffidence is acknowledged as taken-for-granted and therefore, by virtue of the implicit claim that it needs no examination, proposed as grounds for commonality between the speaker and the audience. I don’t think it’s an accident that Australians use “but” this way, given the culture of mateship. “But” used in the way you describe is pretty much an invitation to participate as an insider (and to have one’s own – vestigially, though constantly, doubtful – status as such also thereby acknowledged).

By: The What Why and How of Cultural Neuroscience – Part 2 « Cultural Neuroscience

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 08:38:47 +0000

[...] Science titled “The weirdest people in the world?” (I also highly recommend reading Greg Downey’s review and commentary on the article over at the old Neuroanthropology blog). One of the authors’ claims refers to [...]

By: More on choice. « Henry Humans

More on choice. « Henry Humans — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 00:03:25 +0000

[...] the consumer, the individual, and with so many options (and with all the free time that accompanies WEIRD life) the individual can’t help but twenty-twenty hindsightedly look and see the actual [...]