Not a bit, it meanders too much, does not come to point for several paragraphs. This style of writing is wasteful of readers time and attention. Very poor information density.

A bit meandering but it does paint a picture of a particular time.For more about Margaret Mead maybe read this interview with Mead and Bateson, they both come across as extraordinarily sharp:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20210116040013&#x2F;http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.oikos.org&#x2F;forgod.htm" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20210116040013&#x2F;http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.oikos....</a>Discussed here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=20315632">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=20315632</a>

There are psychological hypotheses that can be stated and tested empirically. So yeah, you can find people who maintain that it&#x27;s a science.

American Society for Group Psychotherapy and PsychodramaAre there still credible voices maintaining that psychology is a science?

Psychodrama is an amazing therapy tool.

There are no pictures.You&#x27;re probably being downvoted because the first paragraph explains that the pictures were drawn on napkins in 1963 when the author was a child, while he was bored at a conference.The napkins and the drawings are not the point. They have been in the trash for 80 years.

Is my ad blocker acting up, or does this article about animal drawings have no illustrations of those animal drawings?Edit: Can the person who downvoted me answer my question, instead of cancelling it?

Drawing Animals with Margaret Mead