Moreover, even ignoring the fact that your analogy is bad, your claim is still wrong.
I know a lot about the people in that remote Chinese village. I know that their first couple years of life are spent becoming accustomed to the world and learning to walk and talk; that it takes several more years before imagination and reality are fully separate, and that they say funny things a lot in the meantime; that they love their parents and learn an enormous amount from them, viewing them as approximately infinite sources both of authority and knowledge; that they enjoy the company of people their age as they grow, and enjoy the experience of friendship with other humans; that they experience love, anger, rage, jealousy, sympathy, empathy, pain; that they look at the stars and feel strongly; that they mostly enjoy music; that they make jokes and laugh at them; that they experience hunger, and that much of their life is ultimately organized around sleeping and eating; that they know their way around their home, their neighborhood, their village; that they grow to know romantic love and desire, and to start families of their own; that they smile to see young children; that they feel sadness and loss and probably cry when their parents die.
I could go on almost endlessly, and these things I know by being alive and a person and by knowing people. Only because I know them will the social scientist's book even make sense to me, the book that lists efficiently for me the few, perhaps important differences that divide me from these people.