24 April 2006
Midwest Voice, Round Two
The column ran Saturday, with some minor editing that was mostly for the better. The Star cut a few lines, as the essay I submitted was about fifty words long. The only complaint I have is a sentence omitted that justifies Harris' theory in a Darwinian sense:
“Children seek their socialization cues from a group wider than their immediate family, for good evolutionary reasons. Harris estimates that due to shortened life expectancies, a Paleolithic child had a one in three chance of having both parents alive at age ten.”
The editors cut the second sentence. Bummer, as it is a key point to her theory. As is, the reader is left hanging as to what the 'good evolutionary reasons' are.
“Children seek their socialization cues from a group wider than their immediate family, for good evolutionary reasons. Harris estimates that due to shortened life expectancies, a Paleolithic child had a one in three chance of having both parents alive at age ten.”
The editors cut the second sentence. Bummer, as it is a key point to her theory. As is, the reader is left hanging as to what the 'good evolutionary reasons' are.
