Sharon Presley on authority


George H. Smith

Recommended Posts

I just dug this out of the YouTube comments, but I haven't read anything on it yet.

Looks like SM got some real sweet fans, though.

Stefan Molyneux and Free Domain Radio (FDR) Revealed

EDIT: This site says that Molyneux's wife, Christina Papadopoulos, is having problems with the College of Psychiatrists of Ontario. There is a link, so I went there. Sure enough: Papadopoulos, Christina (Christina): Authorized to Provide Psychological Services in Ontario >> Discipline & Other Proceedings >> Current Referrals To Discipline

Here is the text (copied from the College of Psychiatrists of Ontario site, not from the blog--but check for yourself):

A panel of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee has referred the following allegations to the Discipline Committee:

Ms. Christina Papadopoulos committed professional misconduct in making public statements and providing advice to the public via the website www.freedomainradio.com and podcasts available thereon; specifically, she:

1. failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1(2) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation. This failure included providing information, advice or comment to the public in a manner contrary to section 6.5 of the Standards of Professional Conduct (Effective September 1, 2005) ("Standards"), providing psychological services while objectivity, competence and effectiveness were compromised contrary to section 12.2 of the Standards, and rendering opinions that were not based upon current, reliable, adequate and appropriate information contrary to section 14.3 of the Standards.

2. provided a service that she knew or ought to have known was not likely to benefit the client, contrary to section 1(9) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation.

3. engaged in conduct or performed an act, in the course of practicing the profession, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, contrary to section 1(34) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation.

A hearing date has not yet been scheduled

Michael

Oh my, oh my, how juicy. And not the least bit surprising. If she is relying on him, as the info at molyneuxrevealed.com seems to indicate, yeah, that would certainly lead to misconduct!

And here's what it says about him based on his own words:

"According to Stefan Molyneux's own accounts: he was mostly abandoned by his father as an infant. He was neglected by his own mother and threw her out of the house when he was 15. He has never been on the receiving end of parental love of any kind. He has a Master's Degree in history. He read some psychology books and went to therapy once."

I have a friend who has no psych credentials but is a good intuitive psychologists. She figured it out before I even knew this---Projection. Yep. He was abused, ergo, everyone else has been abused. What's his wife's story, I wonder.

Hey, you guys are great. I'm putting all this info in my SM file!

Edited by Sharon Presley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joke, yes. Branden wanted to use "libertarian" and Rand said no. She called it a "coined" word.

--Brant

The word "libertarian" dates back to the 19th century. Not what I would call a "coined" word. Not up on her American radical history, huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sharon:

FYI - this was a prior thread I started on OL

The Zeitgeist Movement

Adam

There seems to be an unending supply of people who want to play God --by force.

Sharon:

Very true. Yet there have been wonderful communities that have existed, predominantly, without the initiation of force. Of course, there is always the possibility of that traveling God salesman to screw up a peaceful community. The God's themselves, contend in vain, against stupidity!**

The Gods Themselves, wiki link here, is one of my all time favorite Asimov novels structurally, as well as the vision provided in it's plot, keeps me on cult alert 24/7.

**a quotation by Friedrich Schiller (1759–1805): "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens." ("Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.")

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sharon,

I went to the profile of that Blog owner (one Edmond Burke) and look what else I came up with:

FDR Liberated

You have to bop around this site a bit to uncover stuff, but there is a "Read Me First" section that helps. I have only skimmed a few things (very superficially), but it appears to be a blog from one of the de-fellowshipped, or de-frocked, or shunned, or excommunicated or whatever term the Freedom Domain Radio organization calls giving a member the boot. From bopping around, I found out something else. It appears that the site owner also operates a forum for ex-FDR people. (Fer Keriiiiiiiist sake, couldn't these Molyneux people come up with a better acronym? I feel weird and New Dealish just from typing "FDR"...)

Here's the forum: Liberating Minds :: Welcome :: Welcome to new users

From that page:

... about half of the initial board members including me the administrator used to be or still are members of the FreeDomainRadio Board. Needless to say that we have learnt an awful lot from FDR in general and Stefan Molyneux in particular, but we have become dissatisfied and uncomfortable with the philosophical and psychological direction FDR and Stef are going in, or feel the need for more focused discussions than are possible on the FDR Board (or simply were banned from that board).

Here is another site I got from the Burke profile page:

Digital Ethnography – Freedomain Radio: Is Stefan Molyneaux's work ethical?

I just bopped around that site a bit and got lost among the Molyneaux critics and lost souls who are confused. There's also An Essay by Stefan Molyneux, which I quote from below. I decided to check this to make sure it was accurate (heh -- that's a habit you don't see online too much :) ) and, after some digging, found the original. It seems pretty accurate. Here is the original (written in 2005) from Molyneaux's blog: Are People Just Stupid?

Therapists generally consider that a patient who is terminating a multitude of long-term relationships is acting in an impulsive and self-destructive manner. In particular, breaking off relationships with family members is considered only a last resort, usually reserved for physically abusive parents or spouses. Everything else is supposed to be 'worked out.'

Of course, quite the opposite is true. Of all the relationships in your life, your relationship with your parents and siblings is by far the most likely to be completely screwed up. Not only that, but you also have absolutely no power to improve these relationships.

Harsh? Not at all. Merely logical.

When raising children, parents have absolutely no idea what they're doing. Why should children obey them? Because parents are right? Hell no – ask parents why they hold their beliefs, they don't have a clue. How could they? The last competent philosopher was probably John Locke, over three hundred years ago.

I'm starting to get a feel for why I never resonated with this guy.

If there is any lesson I have gleaned from this so far, it is to observe the power of polemical video and the result of being prolific.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He actually said if you can't convince your friends to become libertariasn, you should drop them. I was dumbfounded. Everybody else seemed to be ga-ga over him.

I get the impression that this guy is a sectarian rather than a libertarian.

And here's what it says about him based on his own words:

"According to Stefan Molyneux's own accounts: he was mostly abandoned by his father as an infant. He was neglected by his own mother and threw her out of the house when he was 15. He has never been on the receiving end of parental love of any kind. He has a Master's Degree in history. He read some psychology books and went to therapy once."

I have a friend who has no psych credentials but is a good intuitive psychologists. She figured it out before I even knew this---Projection. Yep. He was abused, ergo, everyone else has been abused.

Interesting to note in Molyneux is his lack of empathy toward others. Not surprising if one considers the childhood he had. Children with similar histories are at high risk of becoming unempathetic individuals as adults.

He's known for advising people to ditch their family connections too.

Fits in perfectly with the above.

One could also interpret it as subconscious desire on Molyneux' part to deprave others of what he had been depraved as well.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joke, yes. Branden wanted to use "libertarian" and Rand said no. She called it a "coined" word.

--Brant

The word "libertarian" dates back to the 19th century. Not what I would call a "coined" word. Not up on her American radical history, huh?

Apparently not. :)

As for Ayn Rand not being in favor of neologisms - this ignores an objectively operating principle of language.

On a deeper level, I think this had to do with Rand having problems acknowledging that everything that exists is subjected to permanent transformation.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting to note in Molyneux is his lack of empathy toward others. Not surprising if one considers the childhood he had. Children with similar histories are at high risk of becoming unempathetic individuals as adults.

There's a new book on the role of empathy in human action by Baron-Cohen (Simon, not Sacha). He has been working on it from the aspect of neuroscience. The book was titled , I think, Zero Empathy in Britain but for American publication it's called something with Evil in the title. US readers are more attracted by Evil in the title than empathy apparently. The book was called "naive" by the Wall Street Journal - which is, of course, owned by one R. Murdoch.

I know you are very interested in the concept of empathy Angela, so I wondered if you may have come across it or Baron-Cohen's work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting to note in Molyneux is his lack of empathy toward others. Not surprising if one considers the childhood he had. Children with similar histories are at high risk of becoming unempathetic individuals as adults.

There's a new book on the role of empathy in human action by Baron-Cohen (Simon, not Sacha). He has been working on it from the aspect of neuroscience. The book was titled , I think, Zero Empathy in Britain but for American publication it's called something with Evil in the title. US readers are more attracted by Evil in the title than empathy apparently. The book was called "naive" by the Wall Street Journal - which is, of course, owned by one R. Murdoch.

I know you are very interested in the concept of empathy Angela, so I wondered if you may have come across it or Baron-Cohen's work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be an unending supply of people who want to play God --by force.

Sharon:

Very true. Yet there have been wonderful communities that have existed, predominantly, without the initiation of force. Of course, there is always the possibility of that traveling God salesman to screw up a peaceful community. The God's themselves, contend in vain, against stupidity!**

The Gods Themselves, wiki link here, is one of my all time favorite Asimov novels structurally, as well as the vision provided in it's plot, keeps me on cult alert 24/7.

**a quotation by Friedrich Schiller (1759–1805): "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens." ("Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.")

Adam

Indeed. Or as the button I have on my bulletin board says: "The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity."

I probably read the Asimov story years ago but had forgotten it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sharon,

I went to the profile of that Blog owner (one Edmond Burke) and look what else I came up with:

FDR Liberated

You have to bop around this site a bit to uncover stuff, but there is a "Read Me First" section that helps. I have only skimmed a few things (very superficially), but it appears to be a blog from one of the de-fellowshipped, or de-frocked, or shunned, or excommunicated or whatever term the Freedom Domain Radio organization calls giving a member the boot. From bopping around, I found out something else. It appears that the site owner also operates a forum for ex-FDR people. (Fer Keriiiiiiiist sake, couldn't these Molyneux people come up with a better acronym? I feel weird and New Dealish just from typing "FDR"...)

Here's the forum: Liberating Minds :: Welcome :: Welcome to new users

From that page:

... about half of the initial board members including me the administrator used to be or still are members of the FreeDomainRadio Board. Needless to say that we have learnt an awful lot from FDR in general and Stefan Molyneux in particular, but we have become dissatisfied and uncomfortable with the philosophical and psychological direction FDR and Stef are going in, or feel the need for more focused discussions than are possible on the FDR Board (or simply were banned from that board).

Here is another site I got from the Burke profile page:

Digital Ethnography – Freedomain Radio: Is Stefan Molyneaux's work ethical?

I just bopped around that site a bit and got lost among the Molyneaux critics and lost souls who are confused. There's also An Essay by Stefan Molyneux, which I quote from below. I decided to check this to make sure it was accurate (heh -- that's a habit you don't see online too much :) ) and, after some digging, found the original. It seems pretty accurate. Here is the original (written in 2005) from Molyneaux's blog: Are People Just Stupid?

Therapists generally consider that a patient who is terminating a multitude of long-term relationships is acting in an impulsive and self-destructive manner. In particular, breaking off relationships with family members is considered only a last resort, usually reserved for physically abusive parents or spouses. Everything else is supposed to be 'worked out.'

Of course, quite the opposite is true. Of all the relationships in your life, your relationship with your parents and siblings is by far the most likely to be completely screwed up. Not only that, but you also have absolutely no power to improve these relationships.

Harsh? Not at all. Merely logical.

When raising children, parents have absolutely no idea what they're doing. Why should children obey them? Because parents are right? Hell no – ask parents why they hold their beliefs, they don't have a clue. How could they? The last competent philosopher was probably John Locke, over three hundred years ago.

I'm starting to get a feel for why I never resonated with this guy.

If there is any lesson I have gleaned from this so far, it is to observe the power of polemical video and the result of being prolific.

Michael

Re: two websites above. Yes, I found them too. Quite interesting. Pretty telling that you don't find 3 websites calling anyone else currently active in the libertarian movement cultists. if there is one, let me know.

As for the quote from Molyneux. HE knows absolutely nothing about childrearing. He claims he had a horrible childhood [my informed source is skeptical about that]. If that were true, so what? He would just be projecting his situation onto everyone else. He is not a psychologist (he has an MA in history). It's not clear that his wife even has a masters in psych, let alone a PhD. I, on the other hand, not only have a PhD, I have taught developmental psych for many years. ALL the research in DP says that the absolute best childrearing methods is what is called "authoritative parenting"--setting firm guidelines that are enforced, explaining to the child why what they did was wrong, and minimum of physical punishment. The research is remarkably consistent. Children raised this way are more likely to be socially and morally nature, competent, and doing well in school. Children who are raised the way SM apparently wants them raised--with no guidelines or enforced discipline (psychologists call this "indulgent parenting") are less likely to be socially competent and in fact are more likely to be domineering, egocentric, and have trouble with self-control. [source: "Lifespan Development" 13th Ed. 2011 by John Santrock] In other words, SM is full of BS.

As for his wife: my informed source said SM has taken down all the psych videos and videos of her from the freedomain radio site. H-m-m-m, how curious. I hope people have them cached. After reading over the charges, I'd say the ethical issues will be based on giving psychological advice without a proper interview (it's done online), lack of confidentiality (anyone can listen in), and giving inappropriate advice that falls outside the role of the therapist--like "oh you poor baby, you've been abused. Defoo (Leave) your parents." Yep, that's all pretty unethical. And cult-like.

I was also told [next step--verifying for myself--I'm with you. Michael--always check it out yourself] that he claims he invented the idea of insurance companies protecting people in an anarchist society. Oh really? Well, according to The Voluntary City edited by David Beito and others, no. They did it in the 18th c.in London. And then ,of course, there is also The Market for Liberty by Morris and Linda Tannehill as well as Rothbard's For a New Liberty. Oopsie, Stef, if you did this, there's a name for it, and since I don't think you believe in libel laws, I'll just call it by its name-- "lying."

These people are a menace to the young people who fall for this crap and they make the libertarian movement look bad. Swell. Just what we need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting to note in Molyneux is his lack of empathy toward others. Not surprising if one considers the childhood he had. Children with similar histories are at high risk of becoming unempathetic individuals as adults.

There's a new book on the role of empathy in human action by Baron-Cohen (Simon, not Sacha). He has been working on it from the aspect of neuroscience. The book was titled , I think, Zero Empathy in Britain but for American publication it's called something with Evil in the title. US readers are more attracted by Evil in the title than empathy apparently. The book was called "naive" by the Wall Street Journal - which is, of course, owned by one R. Murdoch.

I know you are very interested in the concept of empathy Angela, so I wondered if you may have come across it or Baron-Cohen's work.

I haven't read this book yet, but based on what I read about it, I'm betting that when I do read it, I will agree with the WSJ. [so what if it's owned by Murdoch--has nothing to do with whether the statement is true or not. That's a circumstantial ad hominem]. As I understand it, he suggests that it you just can get people to be empathetic, then they won't be "evil" anymore. Oh jeez, if this is what the says, he is way more than naive, he's an idiot. Can you imagine trying to convince Hitler or Stalin to be empathetic? Or a serial killer? Give me a break. And he's in neuroscience..he should know better. The experts in clinical forensic psych, most notably Robert Hare, think that there is almost certainly a genetic component to psychopathy. If so, then Hitler, Stalin (arguably highly psychopathic by clinical standards; similar to the DSM category "antisocial personality disorder)) and serial killers (not even arguably, definitely) are NOT going to suddenly be nice if you "teach" them empathy. They are broken people and the chances of "fixing" them are basically ZERO.

And just for the record, I've also taught forensic psych as well as critical thinking, so yeah, I can sling these terms around. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book was titled , I think, Zero Empathy in Britain but for American publication it's called something with Evil in the title. US readers are more attracted by Evil in the title than empathy apparently.

Carol Jane,

You mean like with this news report on the book?

Why a lack of empathy is the root of all evil

By Clint Witchalls

Tuesday, 5 April 2011

The Independent

Oh, wait a minute!

Isn't that an English newspaper?

Hmmmmmmm...

:)

I admit I pulled this article from the Wikipedia entry on Simon Baron-Cohen, so I haven't dug too far into your insinuation about Americans liking Evil more than Empathy. The USA is the most charitable nation on earth, so I kinda doubt the insinuation.

Title-wise, if there is a marketing study to back up the title change, which there probably is, I imagine Americans spend more on nonfiction books with drama in the title than lack thereof. Empathy does not bring drama to mind. Evil does.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book was titled , I think, Zero Empathy in Britain but for American publication it's called something with Evil in the title. US readers are more attracted by Evil in the title than empathy apparently.

Carol Jane,

You mean like with this news report on the book?

Why a lack of empathy is the root of all evil

By Clint Witchalls

Tuesday, 5 April 2011

The Independent

Oh, wait a minute!

Isn't that an English newspaper?

Hmmmmmmm...

:)

I admit I pulled this article from the Wikipedia entry on Simon Baron-Cohen, so I haven't dug too far into your insinuation about Americans liking Evil more than Empathy. The USA is the most charitable nation on earth, so I kinda doubt the insinuation.

Title-wise, if there is a marketing study to back up the title change, which there probably is, I imagine Americans spend more on nonfiction books with drama in the title than lack thereof. Empathy does not bring drama to mind. Evil does.

Michael

Title-wise is all I was talking about. As the book discusses the psychology of those who have no empathy, bookbuyers in America, with Bush's Axis of Evil and Evildoers and 9/11 still ringing in their ears, plus the greater influence of religious "good and evil", would be deemed more attracted to the drama of that title.

I was making no insinuation that Americans (or that any given group of people) "like" evil more than empathy, and I am surprised that you think that I was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

E-Q test

Please note that all test and scores are not diagnostic. Most likely they are also not telling you something you not already know or suspect. Non of our tests is intended to replace the services of any counselor, psychiatric evaluation, medical evaluation, or any other resource.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Title-wise is all I was talking about. As the book discusses the psychology of those who have no empathy, bookbuyers in America, with Bush's Axis of Evil and Evildoers and 9/11 still ringing in their ears, plus the greater influence of religious "good and evil", would be deemed more attracted to the drama of that title.

I was making no insinuation that Americans (or that any given group of people) "like" evil more than empathy, and I am surprised that you think that I was.

Carol Jane,

It's kind of as I thought. You were referring to the influence of conservative Americans (per your comment above) as if this applied to all Americans (at least book-buying Americans).

I just let the flower bloom a little so you can see what it looks like wide open. Not pretty, is it?

Frankly, I would be surprised if the influence of Bush and 9/11 had any major impact on the title change at all. And, judging from what I have seen of the book so far, I would be surprised if the main buying audience came from people influenced by conservative stuff.

I want to add something to my guess about the drama factor. "Empathy" is a more abstract word than "evil" in the American popular mind.

Here's a way to imagine what it feels like. Try to go out of focus and imagine hearing stuff in the background as if you were a Typical American (like, say, with TV commercials). Then it becomes clear that "empathy" has a poor ring to it. The word sounds sort of like a highfalutin way of saying "kindness." But "evil"? Hell, any comic book hero has an evil counterpart. That's the bad guy! People know instantly in visual terms what evil looks like--even from background noise. With empathy, they have to stop and think before the image comes to mind.

That microsecond can be death on a crowded competitive market.

I would wager this kind of factor has far, far more bearing on the title change than politics or foreign affairs--or even the memes in the air from politics or foreign affairs.

I've only recently started understanding (for real) how target markets are profiled, and I admit I might be wrong, but from what I have seen so far, the underlying elements are rarely as simple as what you said.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Us consevativs don't need to buy no damn books...

We know evil when we sees it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Title-wise is all I was talking about. As the book discusses the psychology of those who have no empathy, bookbuyers in America, with Bush's Axis of Evil and Evildoers and 9/11 still ringing in their ears, plus the greater influence of religious "good and evil", would be deemed more attracted to the drama of that title.

I was making no insinuation that Americans (or that any given group of people) "like" evil more than empathy, and I am surprised that you think that I was.

Carol Jane,

It's kind of as I thought. You were referring to the influence of conservative Americans (per your comment above) as if this applied to all Americans (at least book-buying Americans).

I just let the flower bloom a little so you can see what it looks like wide open. Not pretty, is it?

Frankly, I would be surprised if the influence of Bush and 9/11 had any major impact on the title change at all. And, judging from what I have seen of the book so far, I would be surprised if the main buying audience came from people influenced by conservative stuff.

I want to add something to my guess about the drama factor. "Empathy" is a more abstract word than "evil" in the American popular mind.

Here's a way to imagine what it feels like. Try to go out of focus and imagine hearing stuff in the background as if you were a Typical American (like, say, with TV commercials). Then it becomes clear that "empathy" has a poor ring to it. The word sounds sort of like a highfalutin way of saying "kindness." But "evil"? Hell, any comic book hero has an evil counterpart. That's the bad guy! People know instantly in visual terms what evil looks like--even from background noise. With empathy, they have to stop and think before the image comes to mind.

That microsecond can be death on a crowded competitive market.

I would wager this kind of factor has far, far more bearing on the title change than politics or foreign affairs--or even the memes in the air from politics or foreign affairs.

I've only recently started understanding (for real) how target markets are profiled, and I admit I might be wrong, but from what I have seen so far, the underlying elements are rarely as simple as what you said.

Michael

So... the US book marketers are smarter than the British ones?

For myself, the Zero title would capture my microsecond. There is a depressing abundance of evil in life and literature, but the idea of total absence of a basic human quality is truly attention-getting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the article predictable, and laughable too, if it weren't so amoral.

Like all determinists, Baron-Cohen is boring. They all start from the premise that what a man is born with (God-given, instinctive, etc) is his true nobility.

Conversely, rationally choosing a conscious and conscientuous morality to live by, is rather passe - and just too 'easy'.

He brings up the Rwandan genocide as an example of (I assume) lack of empathy. As if every one of the 100's of thousands of perpetrators of it was a psychopath, or indeed would score low on his empathy scale.

Nasty rubbish. As I've seen recently with a campaign in Uganda to make homosexuality punishable by law - up to the death sentence. A Christian pastor representing a massive congregation was behind it, to the extent that it was debated in Parliament and finally, narrowly, overturned. Was the campaign due to lack of empathy? Or stone-cold evil?

Empathy is a quality; that cannot be denied. I think we all appreciate the ability to put ourselves in others' shoes. But it has always been supremely useless in the face of sickening self-righteousness. It will always be so.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... the US book marketers are smarter than the British ones?

Carol Jane,

I don't think intelligence is the proper standard.

I think correct profiling of the target market is.

The Brits cultivate snobbery as a virtue from the cradle, so they express disdain for the more obvious stuff. That's a guess, but it aligns with the Brits I have known (who always come across to me as considering Americans as uncivilized, but in a positive way). The Brit publishers merely opted for a title to fit that demographic, psychographic and all the other graphics they use.

Interestingly, I looked at the Amazon site for both titles. I was interested in the customer reviews. The negative ones bash the hell out of the book, not because they disagree per se, but because they claim that Baron-Cohen has vastly oversimplified the field of psychopathy, twisted interpretations to protect his views on autism, and ignored large chunks of data.

Obviously, to get a feel for him, I would need to read the work, but these are warning signs I generally look out for when approaching an author I am not familiar with.

(This same kind of criticism also applies--with total validity--to Rand, and I learned that only after a lot of study and involvement. So I guess I am a bit sensitive to it when I see the signs.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... the US book marketers are smarter than the British ones?

Carol Jane,

I don't think intelligence is the proper standard.

I think correct profiling of the target market is.

The Brits cultivate snobbery as a virtue from the cradle, so they express disdain for the more obvious stuff. That's a guess, but it aligns with the Brits I have known (who always come across to me as considering Americans as uncivilized, but in a positive way). The Brit publishers merely opted for a title to fit that demographic, psychographic and all the other graphics they use.

Interestingly, I looked at the Amazon site for both titles. I was interested in the customer reviews. The negative ones bash the hell out of the book, not because they disagree per se, but because they claim that Baron-Cohen has vastly oversimplified the field of psychopathy, twisted interpretations to protect his views on autism, and ignored large chunks of data.

Obviously, to get a feel for him, I would need to read the work, but these are warning signs I generally look out for when approaching an author I am not familiar with.

Michael

Me too. I was more interested in the neuroscience and brain-mapping stuff. Obviously whatever conclusions he draws are theories based on data, and if he ignores conflicting data I would be suspicious too. Guess I'll have to read the book.

Being a cousin of Borat's, I hope he writes decent English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Brits cultivate snobbery as a virtue from the cradle, so they express disdain for the more obvious stuff. That's a guess, but it aligns with the Brits I have known (who always come across to me as considering Americans as uncivilized, but in a positive way). The Brit publishers merely opted for a title to fit that demographic, psychographic and all the other graphics they use.

Michael

Michael,

I lived in Britain for two years and I would not call it so much snobbery as total pervasive class-consciousness.

Coincidentally I was just re-reading one of my favourite Brit authors and came across this:

(Luncheon between bestselling Brit novelist and American film producer)

"I shall never get used to moguls. My mogul turned out to be one of the overly-civilised sort. He had a Dutch-sounding name but ordered in easy Italian a very well-judged meal at a restaurant where he was obviously a valued customer, and so on. But still there was a sense of almost manic competitiveness about him, as though doing these things was a way of scoring points in an immensely elaborate game. I suppose we all do that more or less, but in his culture they seem to regard the game as actually winnable, whereas in ours it is more in the nature of a ritual, whose function, if any, we've somehow forgotten."

-Peter Dickinson

Death of a Unicorn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now