@SFOGuy False positive. This is not the type of serious brawl that occurs when there is a severe lack of parenting in a particular neighborhood.

The "wise elder" in the video is proof of this -- he wouldn't have been able to so easily break up a fight if your anthropological study were at all accurate. The kids know they're in the wrong. They just don't like being laughed at by their "friends".

I've also never heard of a culture where teenagers don't get into fights after school and where classmates don't use peer pressure to bully less aware students into fighting. This is a classic scene from countless middle class neighborhoods, white or black.

When their yuppie parents see this video, I can almost guarantee some asses will be red. Unless they're the kind of ultra liberal parents that don't believe in punishment -- then I may be inclined to agree with you in part.

Today's links over at NC had a piece from Zero Anthropology, a site run by a professor of anthropology (no surprise) residing in Canada.

It's titled "The Dying Days of Liberalism" and delivers a massive takedown, especially of the liberal establishment.

DMT(ayahuasca) are not recreational, no matter which way anyone wants to flip it. The Universe in 5 minutes... an eternal life/death scenario. I was taking ayahuasca to mediate upon my father's death 2 months prior, along with a shaman I respected deeply, I also respect the "traditions" (in that I find the anthropological history incredibly rich) but I realize after "figuring out" DMT on my own that I think my way is best (standard psychedelic procedure, alone) and is the most important thing that I can learn from it. That this is my journey into the soul and I don't need anyone else in my way during my experiences; shamans have a way of influencing the experience, but the experience itself and YOU are the real guide, no need for a shaman with smoked DMT Ayahuasca is definitely an incredible experience and plant... I just prefer my way of visiting "that" realm of infinite knowledge. Tell us how it goes

Some things I did not like about Santo Diame were Christian dogma (with a lot of beliefs taken from many religions), they want you to stay with the circle even though you may be compelled to find somewhere that is quiet and away from everyone else, they separate men from women half circle men, half circle women, guide in between, they do not want talking, but the music is incessant and influences the experience (when the lights go out, be prepared to experience hell on fucking Earth), I couldn't stand the "helpers" at the ceremony I went to, they kept urging people to drink more - there were a lot of aspects that I didn't like about it. But, I certainly wouldn't want to take ayahusca alone, either. Instead, I believe the best way, for me at least, would be one on one with the shaman, in an open place, preferably outside and for him to just chant and check in with me every once in a while.

Also, you can check out the video I made about my smoked DMT breakthrough experience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuRbLAqM6Kk

What about glossophobia (fear of public speaking), or triskaidekaphobia (fear of the number 13)? Those seem less likely to be explained by genetic evolutionary reinforcement / social anthropology. And they appear on many lists of the "most common phobias".

I'm finding it was a fair discussion on both sides. Harris is clearly more knowledge in the subject but Cenk came up with enough counter-examples to keep the discussion interesting.

Ultimately I think they've spent far too much arguing on the part/predominantly Islam to blame and whether Islamic is worse than certain other religions. Both are very subjective positions and I feel Harris comes off dogmatic here. He may be well placed to argue that people will undersell the role of Islam (perhaps due to political correctness) but to take a very absolutist position cheapens his argument.

I'm only half way but I feel they skipped over socio-economics far too quickly. The reason a middle class citizen in a western country can be radicalised by Islam (say ISIS) is because of the wellspring of specifically radical Islamic communities on the internet relative to other religions. This makes the chances of an impressionable individual stumbling on these much higher than say on a radical Christian call to action which I'm sure exist. As an area, the Middle East is also far more conflict prone and engender an immediate need to respond.

That Islam is so important in many Middle Eastern countries is in itself a product of their low socio-economic level. I suspect that in societies where religion rather than the nation state (which is corrupt or ineffectual) is the main cohesive entity and where low education may make many events we attribute to science unexplainable, it is no surprise that religion (Islam) is taken more seriously and literally. For example insofar as there being no effectual system of law and punishment to more humanely deal with criminals. Also because religion is such a more important glue of community, it's strictures are enforced more rigidly - more varied interpretations would lead to disagreements and risk breaking the community apart (or alternatively, I am saying that only communities with rigid ideologies have survived).

The reason why a Palestinian Christian behaves less radically than Palestinian Muslims on average may also have manifold explanations if it is true. If we accept that many religious groups are linked globally, it is arguable that western countries with their more moderate Christian view are a moderating influence relative to the more radical average global interpretation of Islam. Perhaps with suicide bombings being such an Islamic stigma, it is an activity they as a community have actively tried to avoid? Perhaps anthropologically being in the minority in a community engenders less radicalism and more passive behaviour?

That's not anthropology. It's Biological classification and Taxonomy.

Your video, Community - Anthropology Rap ft. Betty White, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You asked how bad ideas can be oppressive and I think I told you. We can consider these things intellectually; thinking and reasoning does produce evidence.

I don't know if I have to remind you, I shouldn't have to, but I'm not the guy from the video. Our opinions are not the same.

There's really no such thing as women. It's not a useful category, vast and arbitrary as it is. The characteristics of women are those of all humanity; no traits emerge to distinguish those groups. Biological sex is a trivial marker, not substantially different from hair color or whether you can curl your tongue, and gender is a personal construct. There's nothing to be said about women that doesn't apply to everyone - so what does feminism have to say? Nothing.

The phenomenon of men as the oppressor of women, so far as it exists, is just a silly little anthropological quirk of our social evolution. It's not something to be taken seriously. There are a hundred worse ways in which unregulated instinctual behaviours are damaging our society every day.

can't wait to hear a professor of geography and anthropology explain why capitalism has failed in a video posted on a commercial site paid for by advertisers ... I'm sure his insights into economics are stunning ... I'm certain he'll explain why socialism is better and also explain why Stalin and Mao had to starve millions for "the greater good" ...

Scientific disciplines that young earth creationism contradicts (from Wiki, which has citations):

Physics and chemistry (including absolute dating methods), geology, astronomy, cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, climatology and dendrochronology among others.

Damn, this scientific conspiracy goes deep!

>> ^ChaosEngine:

God I hated that movie. It wasn't because it was bad (and it was fucking awful), but more because it could have been amazing. It had the chance to be awesome high concept sci-fi with decent action thrown in. Instead it resorted to the worst kind of b-movie schlock and a stoned first year arts students idea of profound philosophy.
And that's ignoring how much the movie hates science. Honestly when that retard took off his helmet and said "don't be a skeptic", I nearly walked out at that point.
"Don't be a skeptic"? Are you fuckin' kidding me? Yeah, let's just ignore one of the fundamental tenets of science!
bah....


You hit the nail on the head. They had so many of the right elements actually sitting there, ready to use... But, they really needed another writer or two. They needed one writer to make sure the story wasn't "all-over-the-place", to streamline it while leaving its intellectual side intact and at full throttle; in fact it should've been increased a bit in a few areas, which is my next writer. They needed to keep some of the more unrealistic elements in check as well, like the crashing spaceship...rolling...and her running, IN-LINE with it, such a stupid and corny seen; just CRASH the damned thing!

The second writer needed to shore up all the inconsistencies with the characters and their supposed "psychological persona" created for the movie. We all hate the fact that scientists are in a VERY foreign environment and yet he takes his helmet right off and shows everyone that his science degree was from a Bible University... This trend continues the entire movie, with of course in-line running girl, because that is where the camera is! And, so, so, so, many more to be enjoyed in drinking games to come. This writer would've made sure these idiocies were stopped dead in the script, secondly he would also interject about how certain characters would react to various scenes--in a REALISTIC fashion, not some cheesy SyFy Original movie of the week release...

The aliens themselves, who have seeded life, SENTIENT LIFE (planned out to the extent that the sentient beings would appear very far down their original "release" of DNA material into the environment--that is called ULTRA-INTELLIGENCE!) screw up minor details on their "WMD". This is another ridiculous notion, because if they can plant sentient life around the Galaxy then setting up a spaceship properly would be "kids play" to them... Another hole that needed a script fix or major change.

This movie just needed more development and perhaps less "ego" on-set and more realistic planning and even a real script with insight into the fields being used in the show: anthropology, biology, engineering, and all the other trades and skills used within--they needed to invite REAL scientists on set and to read the script, and to highlight things that were obviously things that wouldn't happen--even IN a "big business" scenario. The actors could've used real "shadows" of their job and a good idea how that scientist would do their job, with advanced technology and knowledge.

BTW, *quality

I liked the overall look and feel of the unaired pilot. The apartment that Lenard and Sheldon share is an academic's dream in my opinion; dark, cluttered with books and papers, a compact and sparsely furnished social area, a fireplace that adds character to the room and walls adorned with numerous thought structuring white boards. The apartment in the ongoing show struck me as very bright and open; I generally don’t like bright and open, though it does provide more room for physical comedy. The character development was touch and go but in the end I believe Lenard needs no improvement in either the unaired pilot or the ongoing show. I believe that Sheldon's character would benefit from a combination of traits from both the unaired pilot and the current show, most notably the social openness balanced by his high levels of humorous narcissism. I don't believe there is a way to improve on the lead female role, I don't particularly care for either Katie or Penny and find the presence of a female character that is so overly ditzy insulting. What is needed is a smart (PhD level) female character that possesses a keen knowledge of both her field (possibly Anthropology, History or Psychology) and popular culture. This would serve to distinguish her from both the Katie/Penny character and also Amy and Bernadette; both characters that have seemingly no knowledge or an air of condescension concerning popular culture.

I'm pretty sure that's it. I remembered it being called Earth but not the author. It's one of those books I had for years, but haven't read yet.

>> ^ReverendTed:

David Brin's "Earth"?


Unfortunately there is lots of dis-information out there trying to convince people of the wrong information. Often done by people who are sincere in their thoughts and beliefs and honestly think there is a conspiracy by the scientific community to hide the truth... the big bang/abiogenesis/evolution vs creationism and anthropological vs it's all natural climate change debates being one of the bigger examples.

>> ^A10anis:

I love cat videos. But videos like this are the reason I really love the web. Information is literally at our fingertips and, therefore, if you possess a computer there can be no excuse for ignorance.

>> ^shinyblurry:

What issues in theology do you find interesting?

Theology poses some interesting questions about about the meaning and origin of life and morality? Even if I disagree with the answers and the methodology used to come up with them, the questions themselves are fascinating.

You have to understand that I look at it from an anthropological stance. Why / how did primitive cultures use supernatural beings to explain natural phenomena, etc. I don't for a second accept the Christian idea of god. If it was true, there would be no other religions.