by BlisteredWhippet » Tue 14 Nov 2006, 17:44:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'I')f these are scientific peer review journals, Whippet, and you incorporate the concept of neoteny in your article, you're going to get creamed by your peers. You haven't shown a true understanding of the concept, just your own interpretation, based on a cursory glance at the subject. If you think that's adequate, and you have gathered enough evidence, in other areas to support your hypothesis, then bravo. Good luck!
You must have missed my sarcasm:

As far as neotany goes, it matters little to my argument. I think my understanding of neotany is sufficient in that I can integrate it into my conclusions about human pet ownership. Gould can kiss my ass, and my peers, if I have any, can do so as well.
Neotany: a hypothesis about primate development and socialization, largely self-explanatory. Big brained people might have spent their entire lives proving this simplistic concept, just to get their names placed in the canon of great anthropological achievement, but I could care less. When I was a student of Physical Anthropology, I produced my own theories on the origins of bipedal locomotion that were dismissed as simply "interesting theories", only later "proven" to be "true" by someone with a far higher Wonk quotient than I. Fine.
Frequently, I have found that the modern "professional" intellectual is lacking in simple curiosity, and over-reliant on methodology and process and too focused on their discipline ahead of philosophical considerations. They seem to forget there are other ways of knowing things, or they restrict their thinking simply for the sake of efficiency, or a belief that the intellectual sphere will serve its own needs by drawing together various fields of inquiry in forming new interesting insights. But whatever.
Anthropology, in particular, I've noticed, is full of a bunch of stuffed-shirts. Probably something to do with the lack of positions available for all those fossil-polishers and missing-link finders. Only the biggest, most simple-minded nerds get the big paycheck positions and the notoreity of publication. The rest inflict mental damage on college students. I remember my instructor, he came to class dressed like Indiana Jones complete with fedora and suede leather bomber jacket. Sweet. I always kind of considered the class to be fairly lightweight. Something about sitting in a room being lectured at about the technicalities and theories of primate-hood while
being a primate struck me as kind of absurd... a discipline in which you can waste tons of time coming to conclusions that even a child can recognize. Being shown video of primate groups socializing, and a couple of videos of Koko, and you have everything you need to understand about anthropology that is useful and applicable, unless you want to work in Creation Sciences or a Zoo.
The supreme pleasure of philosophy is that you rely on logic and reason to reach conclusion and gain insight, instead of the insular world of a bunch of "experts" and their cronies and publications. Peer review, my ass.
I can only think of one instance where an expert echoed my theories about pet ownership, but I didn't read his stuff and just heard it in passing. You could probably look up his theories on the Google. I recall that he characterized the pet-owner relationship as "parasitic". I'll bet his career didn't go anywhere after that, but you never know, he might have been paid money to research and form that hypothesis. Maybe my theories share a certain sympathy, I don't know. If he's a big shot anthropologist with credentials, maybe you'll have an easier time of digesting his theories.