Why a theory of human nature cannot be based on the distinction between universality and variability: lessons from anthropology

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (2-3):83-84 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

We welcome the critical appraisal of the database used by the behavioral sciences, but we suggest that the authors' differentiation between variable and universal features is ill conceived and that their categorization of non-WEIRD populations is misleading. We propose a different approach to comparative research, which takes population variability seriously and recognizes the methodological difficulties it engenders

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,102

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Anthropologists as Cognitive Scientists.Rita Astuti & Maurice Bloch - 2012 - Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (3):453-461.
The Non-Modularity of Moral Knowledge.Theresa Waynand Tobin - 2005 - Social Philosophy Today 21:33-50.
Man in nature: guest or engineer?: a preliminary enquiry by Christians and Buddhists into the religious dimensions in humanity's relation to nature.S. J. Samartha & Lynn De Silva (eds.) - 1979 - Colombo: Ecumenical Institute for Study and Dialogue in co-operation with the World Council of Churches.
Rethinking human nature: a multidisciplinary approach.Malcolm Jeeves (ed.) - 2011 - Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co..
The Non-generic Universality and the XXIth Century.Viorel Guliciuc - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 24:11-17.
The open: man and animal.Giorgio Agamben - 2004 - Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Does classicism explain universality?Stephen H. Phillips - 2002 - Minds and Machines 12 (3):423-434.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-10-27

Downloads
70 (#217,681)

6 months
6 (#252,172)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?