Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA23071 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:38:38 +0100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000718124810.021b1520@popmail.mcs.net> X-Sender: aaron@popmail.mcs.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:30:23 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net> Subject: Re: Memes and sexuality In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.0.20000718090318.0217f260@popmail.mcs.net> References: <4.3.1.0.20000717130443.021fd100@popmail.mcs.net> <39731605.F7B3705F@pacbell.net> <000001bfedb7$f067dd40$13281e8c@ultracom.net> <4.3.1.0.20000714113715.01eea1e0@popmail.mcs.net> <4.3.1.0.20000716080355.01fa0820@popmail.mcs.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
At 10:17 AM 7/18/00 -0500, Aaron Lynch wrote:
>At 01:45 PM 7/17/00 -0500, Aaron Lynch wrote:
>>At 07:19 AM 7/17/00 -0700, Bill Spight wrote:
>>>Dear Aaron,
>>>
>>> > The article by James Côté points out that Freeman was successful in
>>> gulling
>>> > many intelligent and famous people into believing his story about
>>> Margaret
>>> > Mead being fooled by natives making up stories about their sex lives.
>>> >
>>>
>>>What does Cote say about the video interviews with Mead's informants, in
>>>which they say that they were having fun telling Mead about fictional
>>>sexual encounters, which she obviously wanted to hear?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>Bill
>>
>>Bill,
>>
>>Cote describes a late 1980s interview by Freeman with one supposed
>>informant who claimed to have been part of a pair who hoaxed Margaret
>>Mead back in 1926. Cote points out several things wrong with the way
>>Freeman's interview was used. First, he says that the interviewee
>>apparently does not correspond to anyone described in Mead's work,
>>although Freeman presents this interviewee as a cornerstone of Mead's
>>work. Second, he says that Mead had too many interviews for the whole
>>thing to have been refuted by a single recantation, and that Freeman
>>woefully misrepresents the extent of Mead's interviews. Third, he says
>>that the person interviewed by Freeman contradicted herself in important
>>ways when interviewed yet again. He also points out that this interviewee
>>would have been elderly by the late 1980s, (Probably in her 80s by my
>>reckoning.) The simple passage of over 60 years allows for forgetfulness,
>>while her sheer age would be a risk factor for conditions that impair
>>cognitive functioning.
>>
>>Numerous other misrepresentations of Mead's work are described in the
>>article. Assuming that Cote did not get away with some kind of hoax on
>>_The Skeptical Inquirer_, I would say that the professional thing for
>>Freeman to do is to issue a long list of retractions and stop promoting
>>his 1989-1998 writings about Mead's work. However, as I have not studied
>>either Mead or Freeman extensively, I am not the one to formally call on
>>Freeman to change his ways--not that I am convinced he would respect such
>>a call even a great authority on Mead's work. I do, however, recommend
>>reading the whole article by Cote.
>
>Bill,
>
>When I said that "Cote points out several things wrong with the way
>Freeman's interview was used. First, he says that the interviewee
>apparently does not correspond to anyone described in Mead's work,
>although Freeman presents this interviewee as a cornerstone of Mead's
>work," I was referring to her anthropological published on the Samoans,
>not her letters or diaries. Cote finds only on page 166-167 is there a
>character who could possibly correspond to the interviewee (Fa'apua'a) who
>claimed in the 1980s to be recanting statements made in the 1920s. Cote
>does not find anyone resembling Fa'apua'a in the approximately 25 other
>informants Mead lists in Coming of Age in Samoa. Getting these details is
>why I strongly recommend reading Cote's article rather than relying upon a
>listserver discussion. You should be able to find _The Skeptical Inquirer_
>in most libraries. If you do not trust Cote and Shankman and the
>_Skeptical Inquirer_ reviewers to have finally gotten to the bottom of the
>issue, then you will have to carefully study all the writings by both
>Freeman and Mead that are involved in the dispute. I should note that
>regardless of who is right, it only takes one person working up a
>sensational falsification or distortion to impose all the extra work of
>detailed readings onto people who want to know what someone actually said
>and whether an extremely damning criticism has any merit. This should be
>seen as one of the possible damages of Machiavellian behavior in the
>sciences, and a form of damage that may have increased from the resurgence
>of lay and scientific interest in Machiavelli during recent decades.
>(Machiavelli does, after all, advise people on how to behave, rather than
>presenting a "pure science" type of treatise.)
>
>None of this means that we should regard Mead's work uncritically. Cote
>does recognize that there are flaws and limitations to Mead's work. As
>scientists, we would prefer to see such works as Coming of Age in Samoa
>honestly criticized for what it actually said, rather than dishonestly
>criticized for what it was incorrectly purported to have said. I presume
>that Mead herself would have welcomed criticism based upon what her books
>and scholarly publications actually said. Cote points out, however, that
>criticisms based on severe distortions of what Mead said in Coming of Age
>in Samoa resulted in Freeman gaining far more attention than he would have
>gotten merely by criticizing what the book actually said.
>
>Criticisms of false statements, mistakes, invalid hypotheses, reasoning
>errors, and other real flaws in someone's work can be avoided by an author
>striving for greater accuracy. However, when one's work is criticized for
>things it does not even say, it has a chilling effect on discourse: there
>is no straightforward way to prevent such cretinism by way of honest work.
>So if Mead were still alive and doing work, I suspect that she would have
>second thoughts about making her new works known to Freeman or to the
>publications that carry Freeman's writings. She would have to be concerned
>that conveying her new works to Freeman and the journals used by Freeman
>might lead to more people being misinformed about what Mead writes than
>are being correctly informed about what Mead writes. Likewise, anyone
>whose findings are similar to Mead's might also hesitate to reveal those
>findings in an environment that accepts severe distortions and
>falsifications. In order to reverse that kind of chilling effect, someone
>who has actually published falsifications or distortions of a scientist's
>work would have to give a satisfactory indication that he will be more
>honest or more careful in the future. Indications that one should expect
>more of the same, on the other hand, tend to maintain the chilling effect
>on collaboration and the collegial exchange of information.
>
>
>--Aaron Lynch
I just noticed that in a moment of distraction, I left the words "books and
articles" out of the first sentence above. It should read "...I was
referring to her anthropological books and articles published on the
Samoans, not her letters or diaries."
It occurs to me that Freeman may have greatly overestimated or
misrepresented the role of Mead's diary as a log book for scientific
records. I have not read the diary, but I can imagine that if I were doing
field work in Samoa, I might use a diary to note (among other things)
observations or interviews that I did not consider important enough or
reliable enough to use as a basis for formal publications. I would not use
such a diary to duplicate the effort of recording all observations that
were already recorded in formal logs of the research or drafts of a book
about the research. I might, however, use a diary to take supplementary
notes of conversations held during off hours, for instance. One can never
be sure if such notes might contain something that could suggest a topic of
formal study later on. Unfortunately, Freeman's attacks on Mead's work
started after Mead died, so that she could not explain whether Freeman was
accurately representing the objectives of her diary notations. Since
diaries are generally notes that one makes to oneself, they should be
treated with great caution as material for scientific discourse.
--Aaron Lynch
===============================This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 18 2000 - 19:39:28 BST