Right this is a possibility. More likely though is that he's in a school of thought and you are in another school of thought because Jordan Peterson Clearly isn't the only academic who believes this.
Most schools of thought have valid arguments. I have presented evidence for my school of thought.
If we are being truly unbiased here, you will note you have not presented any evidence to forward your argument. At most you have told me about a person who agrees with you but no real evidence that is in favor of your argument and you have attacked my evidence as false (a statement with also no evidence). If you were truly unbiased and If I was more biased then you then you should have noted this deficiency.
The most unbiased and logical way to rectify this situation involves two possibilities: Present evidence so we can continue the discussion. Or make a statement about how it's not worth your time or some other excuse and the conversation ends with me presenting evidence and you presenting none.
The topic is a book called "The Dawn of Everything". Not reading the book, and then insisting that all the examples presented in the 692-page book do not exist, is not a good look.
What is the point of coming onto this thread other then to see if the book is worth reading or not? It's fair to assume a lot of people on this thread haven't read it.
I never Denied examples didn't exist. I stated your arguments of "you're wrong" prove nothing without evidence. YOU didn't present evidence on this thread; I Did; That's all I said.
I'm sure it's not a "good look" to people who've read the book, but your attitude guarantees that you alienate people on the other side. It is not only a good look to people who believe in the anthropologic status quo, but it's the one look that should matter. I mean are you here just to toot your own horn? This is essentially what I'm seeing from you: "I read the book, you do it too because you're wrong." I came seeking reasons from people like you on why this book should be read.
This book is obviously more of a fringe perspective on anthropology so it does not do you any good at all to project that attitude.
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. You did that repeatedly in this thread. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
My opinion is the status quo of anthropology. Your claiming that the opinion is wrong and not inline with reality? Do you have evidence other then something along the lines of "read the book or your delusional?"
I can tell you other people reading this thread who also believe in traditional anthropology aren't liking what your presenting.
At the very least offer something from the book. Wow. Just wow.
Read it or don't. If you don't want to read, look it up on youtube. You are not obliged to educate yourself, but pretending to education you haven't will reliably solicit unwelcome responses.
No one is obliged to do anything. I am saying your attitude makes it so that other people who haven't read the book are less likely to read it when they read your words. You are actively making your viewpoint less popular. You are not obliged to correct or change your attitude. Keep it if you want.
You are also not an educated or unbiased source. There are posts under this topic that lend genuine controversy around the authors of DoE. Your complete and utter failure to acknowledge alternative viewpoints and dismissing questions as uneducated leaves a bad taste in everyones mouth. Especially for some other reader on HN who might've read this book otherwise.
Be real. You can convince people to read a book without having to copy all 600 pages here. Saying that you're incapable of doing so when every book on the face of the earth has summaries, snippets and reviews to promote themselves is just plain dishonest. It's so obviously dishonest that it's, in fact, a form of trolling. I'm sorry, but this conversation is over as this type of thing is against the rules here.
