Talk:Typology (anthropology)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
"The typological model was built on the assumption that humans can be assigned to a race based on some small number of traits. This assumption has proven false over time, and the typological model in anthropology is now thoroughly discredited." Again, the "advanced" obscure PC anthropology has the final word on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centrum99 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The typological model can't be discredited because all it does is take visual information and categorizes it. Because the visual information (barring any non-inherited changes - which can be compensated for) about an individual is a reflection of the actual genetic code, the model is sound. The errors are in the gathering of the data and the interpretation, not in the model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Futureofman (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
POV
[edit]I have tagged this article with a POV-check tag because it seems highly biased against typology, and though it vaguely mentions that there may be some who support it, it presents no arguments for them and immediately states that the majority discredits them. Though due and undue weight may apply, a single statement should be made. As I am not an expert on the subject, I cannot adequately improve the article. --Quinxorin (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that there isn't any reputable source one could cite to support the sort of racial typology described in this article. There is a strong consensus among anthropologists that racial typology is bullshit. For instance see the AAA's statement: http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
However, I've seen the word typology used in a non-racial sense. For instance, Weber's description of the bureaucracy (though it was sociological, not anthropological) was a typology, and David Graeber specifically calls some of his descriptions of protests in Direct Action: An Ethnography typologies.
However, an expert will have to correct this. 137.165.166.72 (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)