Thanks a ton for sharing that. This is -- so far -- the highest calibre of this debate I've seen. I think both parties are talking passed each-other, having m

Thanks a ton for sharing that. This is -- so far -- the highest calibre of this debate I've seen. I think both parties are talking passed each-other, having missed a very, very important statement: > You recommended people read GG&S with a grain of salt, but the vast majority of casual readers lack that salt when it comes to understanding the flaws in the book. Whether or not this salt is there seems like the addition / omission from which each side argues. With salt, it's a fine enough book. The broad strokes are close enough. Without salt -- as in "I'm a professional because I read this book" -- it probably gets really, really annoying. I definitely agree that nuance is important, and the book should put more effort into not presenting itself as fact. But it's pop-history. It wouldn't be pop if it didn't, and what would be pop would be even worse IMO.