QueeneMUSE@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 5/2/2000 8:11:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> QueeneMUSE@aol.com writes:
> Uh, my nails are getting too long.
> OK I assert that fashionable trendy stuff is a-priori research gone a little
> wack. I mean things like Bell Curve, Howard Gardner, Selfish Gene, Emotional
> IQ, etc. It doesn't mean it's not USEFUL nor does it mean it does not contain
> SOME
> validity : ) It is just questionable as to whether it shows the whole picture,
> the
> *complete* truth. It's skewed. Extremely suspect. They start with the idea of
> justification, not pure research. They all have ramifications on social
> order. That is why so many react emotionally to these theories. If the trendy
> thing reflects YOUR particular justification, you are likely to believe it.
> If not, it's utter horse dookie.
NOW you're thinking Nadia. Whenever I see something that is countersensical, or
seems to play up to the emotional crutches of anyone or any group, I always look
at who is gonna profit, and whose ox is gonna get gored (including guns, BTW). It
helps you recognise the potential for high bogon flux levels. Look at the facts,
from as many different directions as possible. Granted that the fact that over
time, you get used to expecting high bogon emissions from particular groups.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:16 MDT