After reading this article, I found that the ideas of preconception and prejudice came into mind frequently. Chagnon went into Venezuela thinking that he was going to refute the topics that he was taught at the University of Michigan, which were that the world was poisoned by industrialization and that anthropologists should quest to find "noble savages" that had not been corrupted by the rapid economic expansion in the west. I feel that his shaped his view enough to cause him to exaggerate the negative aspects of the Yanomami culture and ignore many of the positive ones, which gives basis to the basic idea that anthropologists need to go into cultures with an open, more emic perspective. How was Chagnon regarded in the anthropological community after his incongruities were brought to light? Or was Chagnon actually correct in his observations and the next anthropologists who came to study the Yanomami were studying a reformed people?