I think there’s a real fallacy in this statement, and it is something I’ve noticed for a while in anthropology; something like the Dunning-Kruger Effect for anthropologists. It is a form of “domain dependency,” which creates a kind of aphasia is how we view cultures other than our own, yet ignore what it is to live in a culture. It is so amazingly obvious, and yet so ignored, and can be summed up by asking a simple question:

If you went out tonight (to a bar, park, whatever), and asked a fellow cultural traveler to explain something about your shared culture to you (the reason or purpose for anything), are you likely to get a generally similar explanation or assessment from everyone? Or, are you likely to agree with the people you talk to?

The answer to that question is obviously, of course not. Here we are, all educated elites with advanced degrees, probably speak more than one language, world traveled, similar culture, etc… and how much do we all agree on the causes or purpose of various phenomena? If we simply took people’s word for things in the field, and regurgitated verbatim what they tell us, then we are nothing but journalists. (This doesn’t even get into the fact that people lie a whole lot, especially to themselves). Unless who we’re talking to is a fellow social scientist and is working with empiric data, a research method, and various theories then we have to assume that the emic data we gather from them is simply that, emic data. It gives us one piece of the puzzle. It is a very necessary part of the puzzle and we can’t do without it, but there’s more to culture than what’s in peoples’ heads. How much information is the average person actually working with in their formation of opinions and beliefs.

The minute you think you are actually gonna get someone in another culture to give you the keys to understanding that will lead to the development of nomothetic generalizations of what’s going on, is the minute you have to conclude that people (including yourself) are experts in your culture, and that there is no need for things like confirming, empiric data. In your culture you demand evidence, you demand confirmation, you don’t just take someone’s word for something, yet this is what so many anthros do in other people’s culture. This is the Dunning-Kruger Effect at work. Sit down and listen to people in your neighborhood meander on about the nature of religion and god for a few hours, and it’ll cure you of this false assumption.

My first take on the article was that it made a strong argument for the co-evolution of intelligence and sociability, since we humans need other people to see our own blind spots. You’ve put your finger on the simplistic nature of my assumptions. If you can’t sort out what’s right for yourself, what equips you to choose between the opinions you hear from others?

Then, whoops! I wonder if what we’re moving toward is seeing this as evidence for the necessity of social hierarchy. Humans often find themselves stuck in situations where they don’t know what to do. The natural reaction is to seek advice from someone you trust. But how is that trust created? How are reputations for knowing more than others do about what needs to be done created? Incredibly fundamental stuff.