fieldnotesfromtheunderworld:

anthropologist-on-the-loose:

jangojips:

lifeinsherds:

anosognosic:

ethnianmandarin:

femmenietzsche:

That’s a top-notch graph. Wish they’d broken down social sciences though.

(Source)

THE RING OF LEARNING

find a way to apply chemistry to social sciences and there’s your grand unified theory

IT’S CALLED ARCHAEOLOGY. I use chemistry, some people are bioarchaeologists, we use math like crazy, and we’re considered part of the social sciences in America.

I agree. Anthropology unifies it all. 

^^^ That was my first thought, too. Of course the first thing I looked at was what was the farthest from social sciences, and saw geography and biology. Which are both incredibly important for the social science of anthropology.

This is literally the reason I chose to study anthropology. Because I thought everything was so cool and I couldn’t choose just one area of study. I wanted to connect all the dots.

ANTHROPOLOGY UNIFIES IT ALL

ANTHROPOLOGY IS ALWAYS THE ANSWER

ANTHROPOLOGY IS LIFE

This is just conjecture, since this graph is placed out of context and I don’t know the exact methods they used to make it.
But I think people are misunderstanding what it’s depicting. This is a graph of academic paper citations. AKA sources.
So what it’s really showing is that when writing formal papers, fields of acadamia are overwhelmingly referencing themselves and adjacent fields.
And to an extent that limits new ways of understanding.
I’m not good at words, but if everyone practiced what’s in this graph, you’d never see discoveries like this one, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-woman-is-a-hair-style-archaeologist-82478448/
where a hairdresser (art) uncovered how the Romans historically did their hair (and discovered a mistranslation, and proved that they didn’t wear wigs).
So it’s less of a problem with uniting the fields, and more of a problem with a lack of cross pollination.