My professor used the term “the schizophrenic experience“ to describe the split between the inner and external realities. He said it was a term anthropologists use but I genuinely can’t find it used anywhere on the internet.

I mean, first and foremost, criticism based on repeated ethnographic descriptions of the same field. Not specific examples of such works, but attempts to methodologically generalize them

I think the general consensus is that Jared Diamond was too deterministic in claiming that the fact that Europeans discovered and colonized the Americas, had the Industrial Revolution, colonized Asia and Africa, etc. was inevitable because of their environment. Yet it also seems that his claim that at 1492 Eurasian dominance was inevitable because of Eurasia's abundance of domesticable plant and animal species isn't particularly controversial. So was Jared Diamond correct about the factors driving historical development up until 1492 and wrong about the factors driving historical development after 1492?

In particular, I am interested in whether there are any works about Malinovsky’s A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term, apart from those that merely draw attention to the obvious discrepancy between his notes and his publications

So for instance, I want to refer to the Waldorf hypothesis about languages shaping our daily habits and perceptions. I love the process of language learning it really does feel like a new perception of everything I once knew is on the horizon. Anyways the process of that is what he referred to as the Hopi tribe who perceived rulership differently and understood the use of materials different from what they understood from their native language.

However, we use the same resources in different ways. If you look at the Shang dynasty and Chinese pre historic religion with Europe and the celts etc. you’ll see a similarity within all of those cultures. But then we have science which comes from language to describe what we observe and test it.

Could that be apart of the pre historic social gathering of humans that expand terms to understand natural science?

Any Books on the Anthropology of Religion?

His writing was so poor that I'm not even sure I understood what he was trying to say correctly, but anyway, these were the genetic arguments he seemed to be making:

1. O-L682 among Koreans underwent a massive star-like expansion through O-A23652, supposedly similar to the “Genghis Khan model,” and the basal lineage of O-A23652 is identified as Japanese.
2. The diversity of O-L682 is higher in Japan. According to him, the Korean O-L682 lineages are mostly just branches resulting from expansion, whereas Japan has both basal and expanded lineages, making the overall diversity of O-L682 higher in Japan.