« The Public Sociology Wars | Main | Superfreakonomics vs. Climateprogress »

November 17, 2009



Via Steve, a roundup of articles criticizing Gladwell (and one creepily intruding into his personal life, which was actually funny on reading Gladwell's responses):

I like the point about his similarity to Tom Friedman. It's hip to bash Friedman, but he's still higher status than his detractors.

Hopefully Anonymous

My angle is less hip-to-bash, than experts vs. people with audience. As an expert in the field of psychology, I think Pinker is higher status than Gladwell. Same with Finkelstein vs. Dershowitz.

Sailer's counterhierarchy is probably the same as mine and yours: willingness to engage in thought about repugnant ideas without a public mainstream values posture.

A difference I think is that you and I are open to looking more critically at our own epistemologic motivations.

Hopefully Anonymous

probably should read "our own motivations regarding epistemologic framing" or something like that.


Present company excluded, who do you think is most open to critically looking at their own epistemological motivations?

Hopefully Anonymous

Scott Aaronson has a nice "it's turtles all the way down" transparency to his writing. He manages the progressive postures with a more ironic detachment than most.

Perhaps Reihann Salaam. He did call himself an "ironic conservative". I think he gets as close as he can to saying he's only "conservative" to help in the larger pageantry of mainstreaming (muslim) south asian technocrats -sort of how Dennis Prager does for jews and Andrew Sullivan does for gays.

I get the sense miner's canary is similar to us, but I haven't read enough of him.

There's more, I'm sure. But those two jump to mind.

The comments to this entry are closed.