I'm open to the idea (though have yet to see what I'd consider strong evidence for it) that Graeber was, generally, full of shit—his public presentation and the

I'm open to the idea (though have yet to see what I'd consider strong evidence for it) that Graeber was, generally, full of shit—his public presentation and the kind of books he wrote incline me to believe it, in fact, even if the books themselves have, so far, surprised me by having a lot more substance than I expected—but the way people harp on that sentence makes me think they're not familiar with the way broad-reaching books like this are researched, written, and edited. Getting a handful of details wrong, even very wrong, is downright normal. Failing to acknowledge and fix them when they're pointed out might be a problem, but... did that happen, with that book? Not just there, but anywhere else? I'd be much more interested in criticism that addresses the core ideas, evidence, and arguments of the book, or that illustrate a pattern of presenting incorrect information, especially if it's left that way once it's made known, or if it's something the arguments presented by the book hinge on. Bringing this one bit up over and over and over doesn't really prove anything, and isn't helpful.