3 ms·
This article is more informative for what it implies about the writer/audience than its actual contents. It dabbles in a mess of pseudoscience (plus a generous
by bz 19y ago
This article is more informative for what it implies about the writer/audience than its actual contents. It dabbles in a mess of pseudoscience (plus a generous dose of bolds and underlines) and ends up drawing an absurd amount of conclusions out of paragraphs smaller than a fist.
If anything, this article just plays on the what we already know/read to pander some trite preconceptions.
- leoc 19y ago> It dabbles in a mess of pseudoscience Given that this was an invited address given this year to the American Psychological Association, that seems a bold claim to make.
- bz 19y agoI don't mean to imply that I think all the points the article makes are bogus because there are some insightful things that are said, especially near the conclusion. I do think the format is extremely poor, granted that it's an opening speech, and not a real paper. My only concern is that when people just see the abbreviated version (like what we have here), it can breed as much haywire logic as something blatantly false. Also, in my shameless defense, here is a (not/credible) blurb about the value of psychology, which is a separate topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#Controversy_as_a_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#Controversy_as_a_sci...