Thank god my reasonable points can be safely written off as the hysterical conspiracy theory thinking of a feminist nut.
Yup
2 responses
-
Like a tepid ice cream, she dribbles.
-
Pandagon is referring to this speech by Baumeister at the American Psychological Association –
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm
which happens to be in my field of academic specialization. I think is an outstanding speech: witty, intellectually brilliant, and solid. Afew weeks ago I wrote to the author to tell him so.
But then Pandagon doesn’t show any sign of understanding what Baumeister said. Indeed, she cannot have understood what he said, because if she did she would not be able to state (at least should could not *honestly* state) the things she does.
Yet this evolutionary psychology and basic statistics stuff isn’t really difficult to understand – I teach it all the time, and nearly all students can demonstrate their accurate understanding of this kind of material under examination conditions.
Pandagon’s account of the Baumeister speech would probably get about twentyfive percent in an exam (clear fail), since what little reference she makes to the material does not show even a broad general familiarity with the material.
So I can only conclude that Pandagon is wifully misunderstanding Baumeister – that she engaged in moral grandstanding and using Baumeister’s speech as mere fodder.
Myself, I find it extraordinary that Pandagon can think it admirable to get herself whipped up into a frenzy of self-righteousness in response to material which is a product of her own wilful incompetence.
Leave a Reply