Talk:Early infanticidal childrearing

Moved old discussions to Talk:Early_infanticidal_childrearing/Archive -- Pgdudda, Sunday, June 16, 2002

Super-fast recap of discussions:

• pointed out that the use of "neolithic" is inaccurate and misleading, since it's impossible to gain significant data about child-rearing practices from archeological remains dating to the Neolithic - this led to a change of article title from "Neolithic infanticidal..." to "Early infanti...".
• determined that deMause drew his analyses from anthropological data of modern hunter-gather societies, while ignoring or disputing anthropological explanations or interpretations
• argued about the validity of and value of cultural relativism
• debated the validity of deMause's conclusions
• some of these debates continue below; you may need to refer to the archive for context not provided here.

---

Maybe we're worrying about cultural relativism, eh, Ark? I think that when the talk page is 10 times longer than the article, something is wrong. This talk page has become the focus of multiple controversies, and it's leading nowhere.

I propose that each participant lay their cards on the table, and an impartial referee count up the points. By this metaphor I mean that each person should report the values they believe in and the reported facts they trust. From there, we can attribute each value and reported fact to its (non-wiki) proponent.

For example, someone quoted de Mause. That's a good start.

We can also link to other articles on rape, incest, molestation[?], child abuse, indigenous cultures[?], anthropology, and so on. Note that the definition of rape and molestation vary among cultures.

Finally, a specific question I'd still like an answer to: which anthropologists have reported and/or commented on parental stimulation of infant genitals, and what does that have to do with incest, molestation, child abuse, et al.?

Are these questions even related to this topic?

In fact, is there even a topic here, or are we all talking at cross purposes? All I want is more good articles for Wikipedia.

Ed Poor, Wednesday, June 12, 2002

Rape and molestation do vary among cultures. This is bad.

Parental stimulation of infant genitals is molestation by definition. Who said it? Look up deMause's citations. SR looked up one it checked out. Of course, he denies it checked out.

I'll lay my cards on the table:

• cultural relativism is crap, believed only by idiots, ignoramuses, anthropologists and historians. The Convention on the Rights of the Child explicitly rejects cultural relativism.

Please cite the article and section, and if possible, the quote in which this Convention "explicitly" (do you really know what the word "explicitly" means?) rejects cultural relativism.

Article 24.3. See also cultural relativism. And since "Traditional practices" is just a synonym for cultural relativism, that's pretty damned explicit. -- Ark

Article 24.3 says "States['] Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children." Traditional practices as used here, I think, means "socially-accepted behaviors" not "cultural relativism". You're confusing rejecting cultural relativism with rejecting behaviors dangerous to others. I guess I'd call the stance reflected in 24.3 "modified cultural relativism" - any behaviors that do not directly endager the child are acceptable, such as circumcision, lip-piercing, wearing hijab, or (gasp!) washing a child's genitals. (I think you are aware of the difference, Ark, I just wanted to make it explicit.) Pgdudda

Article 24.3 abrogates cultural practices. It doesn't abrogate all of them since not all of them are relevant. Lip-piercing and wearing the hijab have no more to do with children's health than growing up to be an astronaut and going to the moon (and by the way, Article 24.3 does outlaw circumcision as traditionally practiced in Africa). The Article concerns itself with a very specific thing, the health of children, and does not merely reject but calls for the abolition of cultural practices which violate the health of children. That is a plain and complete rejection of cultural relativism, within the admittedly limited context of the article. -- Ark

And if it had been structured like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights then the mere promotion of cultural relativism would be in violation of human rights. I'm sad to report this isn't so and that cultural relativists are merely denying human rights. (On a moral level, they are still violating human rights.)

• anthropology and history have achieved nothing, or close to nothing, by the standards of any halfway-decent scientific field (ie, they have done nothing towards constructing theories of culture and history, except for rejecting dozens of the obvious candidates).
• the reason anthropology and history are fucked is because they reject psychology and that is the only possible explanation for both culture and history, either as an ultimate cause or as an intermediate.
• deMause has done extensive and authoritative research on childrearing practices in the last 2 millenia and has constructed a general theory of psychological development for that period. This theory explains cultural change over short and long periods of time, as well as the most important facts of culture and history.
• this theory is sound, and if by some magic it turned out not to be sound, we would need to learn from it since it does explain a lot of things (eg, why warfare occurs, probably the number 1 unresolved question in both history and anthropology). In fact, warfare is a very indicative example and one where deMause crucifies historians (http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln06_war).
• there is only one possible extension of deMause's theory back to the paleolithic, and it ain't the noble savage.
• The extension of deMause's theory fits a particular interpretation of some reported anthropological data from contemporary preliterate hunter gatherer tribes.
• For psychological reasons, anthropologists have been butchering psych-heavy data, and as a result the only reliable thing they say is what they "let slip". So it's possible to get some good clues about what actually happens in the field but on the whole, the data is irretrievably corrupt and needs to be junked.
• Psychohistory is a new field of academia which grew up around the methods deMause pioneered. It is independent of both history and psychology. It is at war with both for their turf and so extreme animosity is predictable. As the new kid on the bloc, it's going to get attacked as "simply not recognized by most historians / psychologists".
• Since psychohistory actually gets results while history and anthropology are too busy jacking off, we should give it preference.
• There is no rational argument against psychohistory's methods. Conservatism is not a rational argument. And as noted above, there are plenty of arguments against both history and anthropology (ie, they deny psychology's influence even in psychological phenomena).

Most of this shouldn't be on this page. It should be on 'Psychohistory's relations to other fields' or 'Psychohistory and academia'. -- Ark

Ark, you're missing the point of history. It's not an attempt to form causative theories like sciences are, but more a temporal equivalent of cartography. Any models explaining what's going on would immediately be something other than history per se - economics, politics, or in the case of the present discussion the distinct field of psychohistory.

That's pretty much my point. Like cartography or natural history, anthropology and history (A&H) aren't sciences per se. Cartography was never anything more than an engineering enterprise (though it did give rise to plate tectonics) and when the time came, natural history gave way to evolutionary biology. Similarly, A&H should give way to psychohistory wherever the latter is interested in taking over.

Unfortunately for me, those most devoted to A&H (like SR) aren't interested in recognizing its limitations, and those most ignorant of it (lik JHK) don't even know them. So they keep bringing up irrelevant counter-arguments to perfectly valid psychohistorical models. For example, "but anthropologists don't believe this" (would someone ever dare to write "but most experimental physicists don't believe in superstring theory? I think not!) or miss the point entirely ("as long as we all understand that psychohistory has nothing to do with history").

I'm not a physicist, so don't quote me on this, but my understanding is that most physicists don't believe in superstring theory. It's one of several related theories that all explain current data with about equal amounts of minor deficiencies, with no clear "best" theory. Again, IANAP, but that's my layman's understanding.

It depends what you mean by 'physicist'. If you mean 'theoretical fundamental physicst' then most physicists do believe in superstrings. And the reason why is because there's no real alternative. If you mean just your average run of the mill physicist, then they don't believe in superstrings, but their opinion doesn't matter.

As for being one of several related theories, your information is out of date by 5-10 years. In the mid-90s it was discovered that there's really only one theory; see the entries on superstring theory and M-theory about it.

In the words of one string proponent, all of the alternatives to string theory (and they're not even considered alternatives since they don't accomplish the same stuff as it does) feel artificial. They're constructs which some people are putting together like LEGO blocks. String theory is different. It's natural; it's something that exists out there somewhere and is being discovered (very slowly and painfully) instead of being constructed with a predetermined goal in mind. Even if it turned out to be wrong (ie, not representative of our universe) then studying it would remain worthwhile because it would tell us about some universe out there, even if not ours, that must surely exist.

A&H aren't the only non-scientific fields of academic study. Another one is, surprisingly enough, neurology (http://www.btinternet.com/~neuronaut/webtwo_chapter_one). Neurology grew out of medicine, and medicine isn't a science per se. In neurology, it's forbidden to theorize about what the data means on a large scale (eg, speculate about the impact of some discovery on the nature of consciousness). Of course, things are now changing on that front. -- Ark

---

Someone (unsigned, I think) wrote:

To begin with, there are many people who would reject cultural relativism. The first example that comes to mind are the women's historians which have become increasingly common, but a proper search shouldn't have trouble coming up with others. Further, the idea of the noble savage is very controversial, and one should hardly consider it some sort of canon.

Three points:

First, no one in the article or the "talk" page, to my knowledge, has promoted the myth of the noble savage. What I myself have been criticizing is the equally mythic notion of the "savage" savage (or savage primitive, or however you want to put it). Many people do adhere to either of these myths, but both are wrong -- non-Western peoples are not all alike. To those who promote the myth of the noble savage, I point out that almost no non-Western society entirely devoid of violence or inequality. To those who promote the myth of the brutal savage, I point out that Westerners have often characterized non-Western practices as stupid, unhealthy, or wrong in part out of their own ignorance, and in part to justify colonial oppression.

I know Ark has dismissed some criticisms of his position as examples of the myth of the noble savage, but readers of this page should realize that this is a common tactic of Ark's -- to misrepresent his opponents and to raise a red-herring. One can easily reject the myth of the primitive, without accepting (let alone promoting) the myth of the noble savage. Indeed, as people like Derrida and Torgovnic and a host of others have demonstrated, the two myths are two sides of the same coin.

Second, there are several forms of cultural relativism. You have the right to dismiss all forms of cultural relativism if you like, but to equate one form of cultural relativism with another either reflects a misunderstanding or promotes misrepresentation.

Finally, it is true that some reject cultural relativism in all its forms. Ark seems to be one. But the fact remains that many people continue to hold to relativism in one form or another. For this article to have NPOV it must recognize these different positions. slrubenstein

The savage savage isn't a myth. What do I mean by the "savage savage"? I do not mean by it that we aren't savages. That is a notion you rightly reject and which is indeed the flip side of the noble savage myth. However, since that's not a notion I've ever defended and the only reason I don't attack it is because it would be futile (any article attacking modern people as savages will be destroyed), belief in the savage savage myth isn't something you can level on me.

What I do claim is that modern societies are less savage than societies in the past. That's most certainly not a myth. And to argue otherwise is to promote the noble savage myth. If you have an absolute standard of morality, there is no choice other than the savage savage or the noble savage. Even if you use just "violence and inequality" as your absolute standard, that's sufficient to force a choice between either the savage savage or the noble savage (as long as you don't redefine rape and murder as non-violent behaviours, which by now I don't trust you not to do). Whether deliberately or unwittingly, you have been promoting the noble savage myth. Either that or complete cultural relativism.

To recap:

Primitives, in relation to modern people can be either:

1. equally savage (obviously untrue)
2. differently savage (cultural relativism)
3. less savage (noble savage)
4. more savage (savage savage)

So rejecting options #2 and #3 leaves one only with #4. There is no maneuvering room for anyone to weasel around. -- Ark

And this is where you and I differ. I generally contend that all present-day cultures are essentially "differently savage". Fancy technology just allows Westerners to be savage in more creative ways that have greater potential for wiping out the entire human race, instead of just individuals or small villages. We don't seem to have evolved the emotional maturity to handle the destructive power of the technology we have access to. pgdudda

When the USA sends F117 planes to destroy a whole village by carpet bombing, is this more or less savage than a half-dozen savages slaughtering a couple people and bathing in their blood? From my point of view, it's less savage. Casualty numbers don't really matter when they depend on different population densities, the available technology and power relations. All of which have nothing to do with morality per se. What matters to me is people's ability to act in immoral ways, that's what I consider savagery. People nowadays are forced to carpet bomb foreign nations because they can't accept, cannot rationalize, deliberately doing harm to innocents. They need to be able to tell themselves that it's an "accident" which they never intended and do not take responsibility for. This is a genuine advance in morality.

So you're saying that the refusal to accept responsibility for one's actions is a moral advancement? That strikes me as... disingenuous? hypocritical? irrational? a poorly-thought out principle? (I'm unable to think of the right word. *sigh*)... There is a certain nobility in being able to say "I killed someone, yes it sucks, but in my view it was (or was not, and why... as the case may be) the best of the available options", rather than saying "I had nothing to do with the jet plane that my tribe's leader sent your way to blow up your village and farmland. Too bad for you."

Now, having gained the "moral sophistication" to (a) know something was wrong, (b) admit to yourself it was wrong, (c) assess whether there existed better alternatives, and (d) accept the conclusion of that assessment and act on it, that I would consider an advancement. I rather suspect that the vast majority of the human race is a long way off from scoring 100% on this particular test. (Whether it's a valid test or not is a separate debate.) -- pgdudda

(c) and (d) are secondary since they follow from (a) and (b).

Assuming intelligent rational persons, yes, that's true. But look at the majority of the human species and tell me that you seriously think that (c) and (d) will automatically follow from (a) and (b). Pgdudda

It's difficult to fit the categories you made onto a psychological basis. You're asking very fundamental questions about the nature of rationality and empathy, and their relation to each other. I don't think anyone understands this topic very well. My intuition tells me that both rationality and morality are a byproduct of increasing integration (decreasing dissociation) of the mind. If morality also requires empathy as a fundamental element then it's possible for a person to be rational without being moral. But I don't think there is any fundamental element to rationality other than increasing integration, so the reverse (morality without rationality) would not be possible. -- Ark

The ability to know something you did was wrong, even if you're unable to accept having done it yet, is an important moral advance with major and far-reaching consequences. You shouldn't discount its consequences just because they fall short of the ideal. Nor should you discount how difficult it is to arrive at that stage in moral evolution just because you're beyond it yourself.

You have an idealized image of casual murderers. Trust me, there is nothing noble in committing murder and not having any problem with it. That's what psychopaths are about. And psychopaths are far worse, and far more disturbing, than those with merely lethal tempers.

Uhm, as I understand it, most casual murders recognize that their actions are considered morally "wrong". They just don't care - for whatever reason - whether they disagree with that value judgment, feel they are justified in their actions, or are so sick that they care more about the adrenaline rush of the act than the consequences it brings about. Pgdudda

Okay, the problem here is that you conceive of morality as a social phenomenon, instead of as a psychological phenomenon. The way you use morality in the paragraph above, it's just a judgement rendered by society. So in that view, for a person to be moral means they submit themselves to social judgement, and moral evolution is a purely social phenomenon. Here's the thing: all of that is wrong.

Morality is a psychological phenomenon. It refers to a person's capacity for empathy. Empathy is an innate ability modulated by how dissociated a preson is, whether they have overriding compulsions, and how rational they are. It's difficult to describe empathy since nobody has a good grip on what it means, let alone what it is. It does seem to be a fundamental ability though.

Now, the people who "just don't care" about moral judgement ... they don't have morality. In the words of one psychopath, they "don't see the big deal" with stabbing an old lady a few dozen times. They don't understand morality because of a fundamental lack of empathy. It's often the case that they know they don't understand morality and will try to fake such understanding in order to avoid being labelled psychopaths, but that doesn't change their lack of understanding.

Reading my response, I don't think I'm being very clear. Your (a) and (b) categories are both psychological. It seems you think that (a) is social or intellectual and (b) is psychological, but that's not the case (ie, a psychopath who just abstractly knows about morality doesn't know morality in any meaningful sense). The human mind is complex enough that it's possible for a person to have enough empathy and rationality in order to know that some action is wrong, and yet be dissociated enough so that this knowledge does not impinge on their actions. Just because some part of a person's mind believes killing to be immoral doesn't mean that all parts of their mind do so. Dissociative identity disorder (aka multiple personalities) is just an extreme example of how most people's minds are structured. -- Ark

The way you phrase it (taking "responsibility") implies that the person knows it's a bad act to have committed. But just because someone says "Yeah, I killed so and so." doesn't mean they feel there's anything wrong with the action or that they feel guilt or remorse having done it. It doesn't even mean they feel regret! These emotions are things which you, a morally evolved person, assume exist in all people. But of course, that's the point: if a person has no morality then they don't have any of these emotions.

Would you say that there is something noble in a person taking pride, or gloating, over murdering someone? Taking "responsibility" for one's actions is easy, and meaningless, when one doesn't consider any of them to be wrong. That's why considering your actions to be wrong (and thus being unable to take responsibility for them anymore) is an essential advance in morality. -- Ark

So, you're saying that Western society (for the most part) has passed level (a), but has not yet reached level (b)? Pgdudda

Yes, but it's not a simple matter of stage (a) then stage (b). For example, most modern people will accept that rape is wrong even if they don't admit, though they know, that killing is wrong. There are some things for which most people are already past stage (b), others for which they haven't reached it. -- Ark

As a consequence of people becoming more moral, they gain greater mental abilities which let them discover technologies, which let them produce things which more effectively kill and butcher people. But this whole chain of causality is only incidental to morality. It is not the case that people became more moral in order to be able to kill more people more effectively.

Additionally, while the greater mental abilities (and thus the greater military power) come from the more advanced people, the desire for destruction comes more from the less advanced people. So as long as all society doesn't advance in lockstep, bloodshed (and greater bloodshed) is inevitable. That doesn't mean there hasn't been an advance in morality, it just means you have a very dynamic system and the complex feedback loops are fouling up your static measurements. In order to get a good (comparable) measurement about the morality of a society, you'd need to keep it static, with no social or technological progress, over a period of maybe a couple generations. You can't make that kind of measurement in our case, but keep in mind that our very ability to accept social and technological progress at the rate we're going is something which primitives lack. And we've yet to annihilate a foreign nation (as the Assyrians did) to pay for that progress. This too is a genuine advance. -- Ark

Yeah, but India and Pakistan came awfully close last month. *sigh* pgdudda

India and Pakistan have societies that are at least 2 centuries behind the times; in relation to the Northern European countries. The USA is behind maybe 50 years. We're talking about fairly primitive societies for the amount of technology and military power they have. -- Ark

---

ark -- in the interests of fairness, I went ahead and looked at the deMause article. Basically, it can be digested into one Philip Larkin poem. Big Whoop. Parents fuck up their kids. We know that. There is absolutely NOTHING there besides that fact that is provable. It is a mass of huge generalizations predicated on two simple ideas -- violence begets violence (duh) and everything that happens is down to psychology. Taking it one step further, de Mause seems to be saying that violent and abusive treatment in childhood are the only possible causes for violence in adulthood. He also denies the possibility of evil in some form, which is morally relativistic -- not a far cry from the cultural relativism Ark so abhors. Yes, there are references to acts of violence by parents (particularly mothers) against children, but we don't get to see the breadth of the studies to show what kind of population was used, etc.

Those of you who know me know I'm not actually that ignorant of history. i stand by my statement that most historians reject psychohistory -- not because we feel threatened by it (and by the way, Ark -- the fact that we get clubbed in with social scientists doesn't make History any less of a Humanity), but because most historians believe that human society is complex and filled with individuals who may act in particular ways for any number of reasons. Generally reductionism is not provable -- merely a simplistic way for the insecure to find meaning.12.230.209.205

You can reduce or generalize things mathematically or statistically but reduction / generalization is the way all science works. Where's your proof that reductionism isn't provable in history? Where's your exhaustive study showing it can't be done? In fact, historians reduce all the time, but they stop when they're no longer comfortable doing so; like when they would have to reduce onto a psychological basis.

And the moment you've given up on reducing / generalizing (or on working out their consequences) you're no longer doing science. Historians may not care to reduce things, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. The work of real scientists in the fields of Complexity Theory[?], Chaos Theory[?], et cetera, make a mockery of your claim that history can't reduce human societies down to verifiable laws because "the subject is too complex". You may be familiar with history, but it's apparent you don't know much about science.

You dismiss the article I cited because it doesn't provide concrete proof against history's "no explanations" stance. Well so fucking what? I never claimed it did. I merely claimed it crucified history as a scientific field and historians as scientists; by showing that the theories historians entertain are all unbelievably idiotic. If you wanted a detailed theory and the evidence to back it up, you'd have to read half a dozen of deMause's books on the subject. You haven't provided a single remotely intelligent argument, satisfying yourself with irrelevancies and vague aspersions (this is what you call "fair"?). If you stand by your statement on that basis, it just proves you're an idiot. I dismiss you from my consideration.

Oh, by the way, dismissing "evil" as a causal explanation doesn't mean one is a cultural relativist. I'm an absolutist but I know enough psychology to reject descriptions of people as "evil" where it doesn't serve my own propaganda purposes. Moral absolutism doesn't require evil, just an absolute, universal concept governing human action. And psychology provides plenty of options! There's brutal, savage, backwards, primitive, unhealthy, maladapted, non-functional, and defective, to name just a few. Like other people dealing with extremely unfamiliar concepts (psychology and moral absolutism) you're eager to claim "contradictions" among them when in fact there are none. (I've done the same thing on many occasions, I was just never stupid enough to think of myself as fair-minded when doing so.) -- Ark

I know enough psychology to reject descriptions of people as "evil" where it doesn't serve my own propaganda purposes. Ark, are you really sure you meant to say this? If so, you've just given yourself away as someone not interested in acquiring new truths, just in expounding and proselytizing the portion of truth you already (think you) know. Given your style of argumentation, I'm inclined not to give you the benefit of the doubt. But I suppose I can always hope you merely suffered a case of not carefully reading what you typed before hitting "save". *wry grin* pgdudda (hope for the human race springs eternal.........)

Propaganda only has negative connotations for me when it's people in positions of power who spread it. When someone in a position of power (corporation, government, media, or cult leader) then even "public service announcement" gets connotations of "evil" as far as I'm concerned. If people refuse to make the essential distinction between a person in a position of power indoctrinating them and someone informing them of what they believe (and they do refuse to make that distinction) then 'propaganda' should be synonymous with 'advocacy'. The fact that it's not means that the media use it as a propaganda word (what we like is advocacy, what we don't is propaganda) exactly like the distinction between terrorist and freedom fighter.

As for your concern that I'm merely interested in advocacy instead of learning new things; that's the purpose of writing on a wiki. You may learn about something on a wiki but to actually learn it you'll have to read a book on it, or argue with a friend for dozens of hours about it.

I have a much narrower view of what a person can learn from a wiki than you do. In my view, NPOV pretty much makes it impossible to learn something because it forces every fact and every argument to be either so vague as to be useless or presented in huge indigestible chunks, with qualifiers and secondary arguments boilerplating it. (wow, why does this feel like deja vu?)Proselytizing, as you put it, is all that's possible on a wiki. It's what every contributor here does, one way or another.

Oh well, I don't think I'm going to be around much longer. The two most important things I could contribute are all but impossible. These stupid fights have drained all my enthusiasm and I'm too tired to continue. If I don't see you again, I think talking with you was the only genuinely pleasant time I had. -- Ark

---

Will someone

please

ban ARK? His non-stop slander, personal attacks, and foul language are damaging the Wikipedia community.

RK, I would happily do so, but being a ranting troll who supports crank theories in an anti-social way isn't enough for a ban. He is correct in his assertion that deMause's theories deserve their own article -- even if he's amazingly rude in the way he treats others. Although I can't imagine that any long-time wikipedian finds him anything but offensive (and his insults towards me are certainly evidence of that)we can't ban people for acting like jerks. Unfortunately, we also can't ban people for deliberately misunderstanding people and then accusing them of stupidity.

To that end, Ark, I never have and never will claim that history is scientific -- History is a humanity, meaning that it deals with human things. Unless you are trying to deny the uniqueness of the individual and perhaps even to deny the soul/mind/whatever it is that makes us thinking, reasoning beings, you can't reduce history in purely scientific terms. This doesn't mean it's not logical, nor that we don't use certain scientific approaches, but is certainly NOT what you seem to think it is. In fact, you constantly demonstrate ignorance of how historians work -- or at least seem to condemn non-scientists for not acting like scientists. BTW -- Psychology is also not scientific...it's a social science, and liable to far more interpretive errors than any pure science. And yes, we do reduce things -- and yes, to where we're comfortable. That comfort level is bound by what we can reasonably conclude -- beyond that point, we let people know that we are dealing with a larger probability and also are obliged to point out possible reasons that a thesis CAN'T be proven past a certain temporal, societal, geographic, etc., point.

Not that it really matters, because it's clear that you have no ability to see things in any way other than your own narrow-minded worldview will allow. Continue to cast your insults if you must. You haven't convinced anyone that you're anything but a crank who thinks he's far more intelligent than he's demonstrated so far. Moreover, I sincerely doubt you've done anything to make people give any credence to deMause and his theories, so I'm thinking you don't need the rest of us anyway ;-) JHK

I have a pretty good grasp on what history is and what it is not; more or less what you describe actually. As for psychology, you're wrong about its scientific basis. Overall, it's a fucked field but it's one that has always aspired to be scientific. Its current status is merely a temporary setback. Actually, this is what it means to be a social science; scientific but fucked up due to enormous political pressures.

As for psychohistory, it gets its scientific status from psychology but being on the forefront of psychological theory, it is not a fucked field. These two facts (history not being science and psychohistory being science) explain why I'm so eager to dismiss history. Why should scientists be subjected to the authority of non-scientists? The same arguments apply to anthropology, and doubly so when the psyches of primitives are concerned.

Convincing people was never my goal, I'm too lazy and people are too bigoted for that. And given the enormous amount of resistance I've encountered on a subject that should be pretty cut and dried, having to fight for every single fucking word in that article, I think the subject is inherently controversial and, you'll be disappointed to hear, I'm not going to beat myself up if I don't manage to enhance psychohistory's repute.

As for people thinking I'm a crank. I'm a power unto myself and I haven't need for their approval nor favour. What people think of me can't change who and what I am. And even if I were craven enough to give that kind of power to others, I certainly wouldn't give it to some anonymous nobodies. As for your opinion, I've already maligned your intellect; did you seriously believe I'd care what you think of me? (Don't feel compelled to respond, I know you're just acting for the audience, as am I for that matter.) -- Ark

---

Ark,

1. You'll get better cooperation by not insulting or swearing at the other contributors.
2. Try writing articles on philosophical topics, such as morality.

I advise you to channel your strong feelings into the accepted format of the Wikipedia. If you think something is significant, find a non-wikipedian who agrees with you, and cite them. For example,

• de Mause concluded that Neolithic peoples did X.
• Famous theologian A says X is bad, or
• Prominent philosopher B says X is bad, or even
• A poll conducted by C reports that __% of D (fill in the blank) say X is bad. (D could be citizens of country...)

There is no way you can get the Wikipedia itself to endorse your views. Please focus on improving the article.

Ed Poor, Monday, June 17, 2002

Frankly, that's too mind-numbingly tedious for me to bother with. I've never kept track of citations and references for my beliefs and I'm not interested in turning over half of my life to that activity. -- Ark

---

This article has been vastly improved in the direction of NPOV from the original version; I for one appreciate the hard work of the many editors. There's a section that I think still needs to move further toward NPOV; my comments are given in segments below.

This model is also based on a reported lack of non-sexual attention paid by infanticidal parents, such as mutual gazes between parent and child, observed by Robert B. Edgerton, Langness, Maria Lepowsky, Bruce Knauft, John W. M. Whiting and Margaret Mead among others.

Citation of sources for a few of these names would be useful. In the absence thereof, I must question them. Since Margaret Mead, at least, disputes the identification of "infanticidal parents" wholesale, this would seem on the surface to be an incorrect statement.

Such mutual gazing is widely recognized in developmental psychology as crucial for proper bonding between mother and child, the failure of which invariably results in absent empathy (i.e., psychopathy).

Sources? I especially question "invariably" - that's a very strong claim, and one that would be disproven by a single counter-example. This seems quite nonscientific to me; I would recommend it either be supported with citations, or withdrawn.

Other examples of absent non-sexual attention include keeping infants away from open fires, preventing children from playing with knives, and stopping newborns from crawling into the sea.

Is there any evidence of such practices culture-wide, and that the practices are not intended to let children learn by experience? The phrase "burned hand teaches best" is a product of such an attitude in Western culture, after all. And - newborns crawling into the sea? That's hyperbole at best; newborns can't crawl!

The model also explains many other well-documented facts, such as the large jump in the mortality rate of Papua New Guinean children after they reach the weaning stage.

If the fact is so well-documented, give a citation or three! It would also help to discuss whether other models might not equally well explain this observation (if supported). Reference to "many other facts" is weak without citing a list of said facts rather than a single example.

Onward and NPOV-ward! -- April, Monday, June 17, 2002

I give up. You can butcher the article at will. There are only one or two people interested in the truth on the subject at all. The rest just want to destroy it (eg. just deleting every sentence that's not referenced and cited, without ever asking for refs or cites, and unilaterally changing the wording so as to minimize what's said without consultation) because they don't like the conclusions.

This is a fucking encyclopedia article. I'm not interested in proving a goddamned theory here. Like I said, only two people other than me are interested in cooperating, giving some leeway and credit to other contributors. Since there are masses of idiots and butchers intent on destroying the theory for every one person interested in helping, I'm just not interested in being the whipping boy on this subject. Fuck you all. -- Ark

Encyclopedia articles, "fucking" or otherwise, do not state absurdities like this article's claim that every child whose mother died in childbirth is "invariably" a "psychopath." "[T]he failure of [mutual gazing] invariably results in absent empathy (i.e., psychopathy)." (I have not the slightest doubt that someone as knowledgeable as you is aware that "i.e." stands for "id est", meaning direct and absolute equivalence.) So please feel free to leave in a huff. If that's too soon, leave in a minute and a huff. --the Epopt