Yeah, I think I said in my review that the thing this book convinced me of first and foremost is the lack of rigor in the field. Not just the book, which was visibly woobly, even if you could see where they were coming from, but the entire intellectual tradition they were working from. And this from someone who reads pop science books as if they're legal briefs -- I don't actually believe it, because it has nothing to do with what's true. There is no true on the board. And everyone knows that everyone is reasoning from conclusion backwards anyway. It's just who convinces you best until the next guy comes along, with only a few cardinal true things as guides.

But that doesn't work for me in anthropology, because it is actually that much wooblier. Go figure.

This book still entertained me thoroughly though.