View Single Post
Unread April 14th, 2006, 09:42 AM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Pinker & BS-o-meters

Carey (to Margaret): Your seed post on this thread began by stating that you were unconvinced by Steve Pinker's argument. Immediately thereafter, you describe a just-so story involving rocks that represent emotions. Later on in the post, you begin a paragraph with "I think . . ." and then reformulate Pinker's metaphor to your own liking. This kind of argumentative style will never fail to spike BS-o-meters, especially Fred's, which is hyper-sensitive.
Thanks for the compliment Carey, but I think that JimB may have even less patience when it comes to Margaret’s type of BS.

FWIW, Margaret and I were having a reasonably civil dialogue until she was the first to “raise the stakes,” as it were, with me in her hissy-fit here, when she inappropriately personalized whatever it was she perceived I was “suggesting” (at which point Tom seemed to join in her attack); and it was Margaret who started playing the racist card with her hideous post, to JimB, here , revealing her self-righteous ideology using accusatory words/phrases directed at JimB, such as the “Full Monte” of a “famous racist,” his“attraction to this area” of general intelligence differences, “the attraction of some Evolutionary Biologists to what [she] had always considered to be the pseudo-science of Eugenics,” etc., etc.

That it was I who suggested LeDoux’s groundbreaking work/book on the biology of emotion to Margaret, and that I’ve really been the only one here to actually discuss, with some vigor, the implications of that biology, has apparently been completely discounted by Margaret b/c I dare to also expose her sanctimonious, preconceived ideology for what it is.

Also, note that I‘ve been the only one here to actually “empathizes with the emotional turmoil, and perhaps cognitive dissonance, that [Margaret’s] circumstances may have engendered [the gender identity thing]”; and appreciate, using her own characterization, that her “intellectual conclusions are first guided by [her] existing beliefs,” and then “weighted” by the “emotional strength [she] subconsciously grants them”—But when I then dare acknowledge that I also “find [her] predilection for projecting that MO onto everyone else to be childishly presumptuous,” her knee-jerk, snooty response is that I lack any “sense of fairness and objectivity to stop enclosing [my] posts in personal attacks.” (And yet is it not Margaret (and Tom) who persist in making gratuitous, not to mention laughable, assertions regarding my supposed “troubled childhood” and/or alleged “problems?”)

Carey: Fred's penchant for insulting others is frustrating, sometimes even infuriating, but if you take it as an indication that your argument needs clarification (or maybe overhaul), then sometimes you can benefit from his feedback….
Again Carey, thanks for the compliment—if people like Margaret (and Tom) paid a little more attention to detail, and were perhaps a bit less insecure/hypersensitive, they’d see that I rarely, if ever, truly make “personal attacks,” but rather I expose (perhaps with too much relish/disdain?) the lack of consistency, rigor, or honesty in their own arguments/ideologies.

And Bravo, Carey—your above comment suggests that you yourself are beginning to realize what the Margarets and Toms have yet to grasp, and what another Fred once opined: “What does not destroy me, makes me stronger.” (While I personally find Nietzsche’s sentiment less than spot on, I do find such an attitude to be somewhat more efficacious than the whine coming from the Margarets.)

How’s your love life?
Reply With Quote