Is using "Grok" as verbal shorthand useful?
Regarding the usage of "Grok", commenters Alex, AllTooHuman and Louisa make some excellent points here.
Can we all make an effort to leave the whole Grok bullshit off of this website and on Sisson's forum where it belongs? I am not knocking Mark at all, I just find the whole Grok thing very grating - it is romantic primitivism of the worst kind and frankly pretty stupid. ...
AllTooHuman cogently responds:
I have to admit that having come to this site from PaNu (and not knowing anything about Sisson) the whole Grok thing still throws me for a bit of a loop. I'm more interested in what the human metabolism seems built to do than any form or primal, tribal re-enactment. I think I've come to understand the Grok thing as a bit of a metaphor, and while it does strike a more romantic and less than scientific tone in my ear as well, I just accept it for what it is: a bit of verbal shorthand as a means to an end.
And Louisa points out:
and there are definitely some people around today who are totally into paleo re-enactment, mentally, spiritually, and emotionally.
@Alex -- I am not a huge fan of the "Grok" thing either, however, as AllTooHuman points out, it is simple, catchy verbal shorthand.
So what do you think?
"Grok" is simply, useful and catchy verbal shorthand for all things Paleo? Or asking WWGD encourages gratuitous and meaningless paleo reenactment?
Given my response and the current quote in the header, "Metabolism first, history second." as well as my inclination to make Paleo a bigger tent, you can see where I stand.