Did no one see the problems inherent in that?
-
-
(hopefully that link works). Anyway, it's long, over 50 pages. So, for future reference for myself and others, Science papers tend to have the longer study in the supplemental. I didn't realize, no one indicated that to me on Friday, or over the weekend. Only now.
Show this thread -
They used dispensations from the Vatican archive as evidence, but it seems that is modern evidence? p. 7
Show this thread -
So for medieval Church exposure: "These measures capture the average duration ancestors of modern-day countries’ inhabitants were exposed to the Churches’ MFP up to the year 1500CE. See Figure 1 in the main text for an overview..."
Show this thread -
"...The measures are coded in three steps. First, for each country, the starting point of the Church’s MFP is determined. Second, the years (up until 1500) during which the country was governed by a Christian ruler are counted..."
Show this thread -
"...Third, the measure is ancestor-adjusted to account for population movements post-1500." p. 8. Okay, so I read this as accounting for descendants from medieval peoples only? Not sure how to interpret this tbh.
Show this thread -
The MFP is what they call the Medieval Family Program. Started in 506 from the Synod of Agde, when the consanguinity prescriptions began properly, according to them.
Show this thread -
Okay so, they start from this date, except for places not yet converted, and they include them after they were properly brought into Church administration.
Show this thread -
So this is in effect a rolling impact presumably, as more and more bishoprics are established. This is interesting to me, methodologically, because it assumes that "Church influence" is congruent with bishoprics/admin, rather than a general societal impact.
Show this thread -
As far as I can tell, they do not acknowledge the enforcement of these rules would not have really been possible, at a late or early stage, and would have been targeted towards elites (who received dispensation often or flouted the rules).
Show this thread -
-
However the more I read this, the more I am unsettled by the premise that exposure to the Church results in "individualism, creativity, embeddedness, and analytical thinking."
Show this thread -
I see Mitterauer cited here, a few other historians like De Jong, but a lot of articles on consanguinity from other scientists.
Show this thread -
And perhaps I am reading this wrong. But it seems to me that this is comparing "The West" as it were with non-Christian, non-Western societies, that from their map seem to be African/Asian nations, with these outcomes. That is...idk. But it unsettles me, guys.
Show this thread -
Eurocentric at best. But that's not a good thing.
Show this thread -
@prof_gabriele and@ISASaxonists wrote an article in@TIME regarding this and the misuse of medieval history among the far right:https://time.com/5734697/middle-ages-mistakes/ …Show this thread -
@erik_kaars did a great breakdown of why this study had so many problems, and why it is nonsensical.https://twitter.com/erik_kaars/status/1198192838195986434 …Show this thread -
Another great (and short) thread on the issues of this study.https://twitter.com/Jacob_Labendz/status/1193181278696284161 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.