Letters to the Editor
Colt
Published Letters: 47
-
Lack of depth in this debate
[Read the article: It all goes back to trail mix]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please allow me to deconstruct this debate and raise a few objections.
I recently attended a forum on science and journalism and one of the key problems that scientists complained about was how reporters would constantly request that the research be couched in terms "that a five year old can understand".
This seems to be a problem here. It seems that Ms. Price either did not read the original research or comprehend it. This is understandable. One expects to be hired at Broadsheet not for the thoroughness of knowledge about arcane areas of science but due to an ability to write.
The author is responding to the summation of the article as it was published in a newspaper for the quick consumption of the general public. For those of you in the arts this is the equivalent of someone deciding on responding to a novel, without actually reading the original but based on a review in local daily.
In this case the response to the article arises from some kind of a knee/jerk non-essentialist feminist position, the accepted norms of which imply that all gender is a construct. This feminism/sociology hypothesis is not actually based on any kind of science but mostly on conjecture and wishful thinking and seems to be supported by many of the members of this blog.
Now there are two things I find interesting about the response garnered here. First the tactics used by Ms. Price, to attack the conclusion of the research, trite humor and absurd hyperbole, taps into the audience's similar values regarding evolutionary biology research. It should be noted that most Climate Change skeptics use the same tactics (e.g. I flew over Mount Kilimanjaro and there was still plenty of snow there, ha Al Gore is an idiot and there is not threat to the planet). The real critique of the research is in the tone not the content.
Secondly I find it interesting that there are posters questioning the authenticity of this article or this branch of science on this forum is absurd. This is essentially an entertainment site, which uses trivial humor to mask its ignorance, or specializes in a perspective on the world. May I suggest that there are better venues to debate the authenticity or value of Evolutionary Psychology (I expect that there are compatriots of the members here in Kansas who would be equally willing to question Evolutionary Biology, but that is, of course, another point all together). This attack on science is not completely unexpected, but it does need to be pointed out.
Finally someone please ban AKA Smith and Canuckistan *** from this site. These are bitter, trivial people with meaningless and lacking integrity. The fact they attack anonymous posters, when they can not respond to an objection (or perhaps even understand the objections) as being trolls only makes them sadder.
Please pardon my rambling prose and any errors of grammar or style I may have made.
Colt
-
Appologies to AKA Smith and Canunkistan Bob
[Read the article: It all goes back to trail mix]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Strange things happen, when rushing to post before lunch. Upon rereading my post, I realized that I was little too liberal in my offensiveness and made some rather personal statements about you. Please accept my apologies. I obviously do not know you and should have refrained from personal attacks. Once again please accept my sincerest apologies.
Colt
-
Quick Posts
[Read the article: It all goes back to trail mix]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Canuckistan
Regarding weather I write better as annonymous, I think you have me mistaken with someone else. Reading your other posts, I can see that it is a common occurance for you. By the way thanks for the civility tip.
Anyways I haven't written on this blog for months. I just created an account an hour back, because it seemed that a great deal of what was being written here missed the point. People were arguing about things that were beyond their depth. Reacting over and over again to style rather than substance.
My observation, simply stated, was that it's absurd to argue about substance of a scintific argument when one hasn't read the peer reviewed jouranl. Given a choice between a journal that features people actually in the field of study or general arts writers and the ignorance choire pretending to understand scientific knowledge, I choose to go with people in the area of specialization. I'm quirky that way.
To Anon
Your comment seemed very cleaver, if entirely trivial. I didn't manufactue the area of study/term Evolutionary Psychology, it pre-existed prior to my usage. In fact many people have used the term even in this discussion. If you doubt me please go back and read some more letters.
So thanks for the clarification and the sass, but your point is.....
While I was enteretained by the attitude, some robustness in your reasoning and communications would be helpful.
Colt
-
Oh Joy - More Rabble Rousing for Cultural Imperialism
[Read the article: Cleric: Your sexy outfit is killing me!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Writers and Readers of this board....
Shut up.
I'm so tired of third rate thinkers selectively editing quotes by whack-jobs and deciding they understand cultural anthropology. Please shut up and focus on things you know about, like Oprah, bikinis and false accusations of rape. Perhaps there is another story to be written about alternative terms for vagina. You can do it. This topic unfortunately is clearly beyond your depth.
Most of the readers of Salon in general and Broadsheet in particular, know nothing about the country, nothing about the specific cultural references, constraints to economic development, and let's be honest anything else for that matter. The readers responses consist of lame stereotypes and personal flame wars/mating rituals with brightstar69. You know nothing.
All you seem to know is some self serving Coles Notes version of Feminism. And even that is half-hearted, learned from watching Ally McBeal and Buffy reruns. So please don't advertise your ignorance by posting to garbage like this.
Do the world a favor, and shut up.
The exception being Amerigo: Do you live abroad?