Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
I neither did the study nor endorsed its methods in any way. If pressed, I'd probably admit that sometimes I think cognitive science is silly.
In truth, I posted this because of William Saletan's response, which I find to be the most interesting part. The study itself is easily dismissed as not very meaningful. But he attacks its methods in a way that is a little off-key, especially for him--hes usually quite bright. The moment I read it, something bothered me, and I think I finally figured it out: he seems to accept the study's premise that adaptability is liberal, while truculence is conservative. Shouldn't he have just debunked THAT idea first? If he did, the rest would fall like a house of cards. Instead, he claims the tudy is rigged and then ends the article with a very defensive-sounding rant, using a weird rhetorical "we" and "you"--as though he were addressing an audience of sneering academic liberals who just called him stupid.
|
After I looked at the study, I was wondering why he made such a long, defensive response too. He's just giving credence to the study.
