Whether children spending time talking about their parents is indeed an
implication that they are not raised by an entire village
Whether the authors interview of childen only from Tertia contradict Dr. Fields results Whether Dr. Fields approach was observation-centered Whether interview-centered approach will provide a more accurate account - what is the metric? While the authors claims that the children in Tertian village is indeed not a village-raise-a-child system, his reasons for claiming that is full of unwarrented assumptions and details that require further elaboration. For example, the author claims that since children in Tertian village spend more time talking about their biological parents, it must be that the biological parents are rearing their own children, not the entire village. However, Tertian children talking about their biological parents more does not imply that their biological parents indeed raised them. It is possible that these children feel more connected to their biological parents, but it may be that it is truly the entire village that is doing the work to rear the children. If the author wishes to support his claims with more credibility, he must include data about whether children themselves feel that they are being raised by their biological parents, and whether their parents believe so as well. This would give a more comprehensive view of the childrearing tradition, given that the villagers and their children respond to these inquiries with honesty. The author claims that his interview of children from Tertia and also from other islands as a whole show data that children in Tertia are indeed raised by their biological parents. However, the author is comparing a biased data, namely the data of children from Tertia and other islands, to Dr. Fields assessment of children in Tertia alone. The author is not giving a fair comparison, and therefore must remove the biased data set and compare his assessment of child rearing traditions only in Tertia alone against that of Dr. Field. Furthermore, the author claims that his interview-centered approach will provide a more accurate account of child-rearing traditions in Tertia and other cultures. However, the author does not show how he will confirm his child-rearing tradition to be correct, or what kind of metric he would use to show the extent of his correctness. To make a more concrete claim, he needs to inform the readers of his object criteria for assessing correctness, first by defining what a village-based child-rearing is against parent-based child-rearing, and his method of obtaining an objective data, not just opinionated interviews. For example, he may track individual children and calculate how much time they spend with their biological parents against the villagers adults, or whether children mirror their biological parents in terms of their use of language, habits, and manners, as opposed to mirroring the mannerisms of other adults in the village. In such areas of assessment, the author should construct a set of objective criteria that will help the readers understand, with as much bias removed as possible, that the children of Tertia truly follow either the villag-based child-rearing or parent-based childrearing. While the author may be truly correct in his assessment, the authors viewed has proved to be either insufficiently corroborated, biased, and opinionated. If the author wishes to improve his argument, he must provide a more comprehensive evidence that clearly communicates his method of why and how, how his approach is fair against other models, and also an objective-based assessment of the child-rearing culture.