09-17-2008, 07:38 PM
An author of a book about moral psychology is not your usual political commentator. It's egghead sort if stuff, I agree. But there's not a whole lot there that's objectionable or disagreeable. It's just academic, theoretical. Politics is not really his turf. He strikes me as a science-and-research oriented author and obvious liberal, pandering to, and preaching to, a liberal audience, being a bit patronizing.
I'm curious, though, what parts of his discussion are objectionable? As academics go, he's entertaining and informed, not as boring and of full of political hooey as many of his peers in academia. If you have exposure to Evolutionary Psychology, his ideas aren't unfamiliar. The way he applies them are original, and questionable, but he makes a good case. I liked the article better than the video, the article seems aimed at a wider audience.
I'm curious, though, what parts of his discussion are objectionable? As academics go, he's entertaining and informed, not as boring and of full of political hooey as many of his peers in academia. If you have exposure to Evolutionary Psychology, his ideas aren't unfamiliar. The way he applies them are original, and questionable, but he makes a good case. I liked the article better than the video, the article seems aimed at a wider audience.