Comments for Mackerel Economics

Comment on Escalators are a dumb invention by weightlosseby

weightlosseby — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:08:44 +0000

great website, you obviously care enough about the site to create great content. The web needs more sites like this. keep it up.

Comment on Humans and men: there are differences by mackereleconomics

mackereleconomics — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:31:15 +0000

I would like to quickly clarify that receiving honorary doctorates does not entitle Mr. McDonald to use the title “Dr.” As far as I can tell, he never received graduate-level training in the sciences.

Comment on Humans and men: there are differences by Tai Wan

Tai Wan — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:50:48 +0000

I disagree with and am shocked by your strike against Dr. McDonald.

Bob McDonald has proven over and over again that he is, in fact, interested in promoting feminism. You’ll find evidence for this in his Quirks and Quarks blog entries. (For example, http://www.cbc.ca/technology/quirks-blog/2007/10/two_women_space_commanders_wha.html)

Comment on Escalators are a dumb invention by Steven Van Overbeke

Steven Van Overbeke — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 03:51:56 +0000

To Frank you are right in some regard that the London Underground is one of the exceptions where keeping escalators is a good idea even though I have a fear of them. I know it is a stupid fear, but can’t help it. That and heights are the only things I am afraid of, but anyway I still think that having more elevators for the Underground however, would help if only to help the elderly and everyone else to have an alternate way to get down if they are like me. However, the one thing that I don’t understand about escalators is the fact that they were invented at all since quite frankly about 375 people a year die on them , but what are you going to do. I glad that a lot of countries have decided to switch to elevators. It just seems safer to me when I think about it.

Comment on Escalators are a dumb invention by Frank

Frank — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:56:08 +0000

An exception should be made, however, for places like the London Underground, where a station can be a few storeys below street level. It’s also worth noting that on the left side of escalators in the London Underground, people are walking, even as the stairs do some of the climbing for them.
In a city like London, where people generally walk and take public transport everywhere, they hardly qualify as “lazy bastard[s]“.

Comment on Hohle Fels Venus reveals more about modern times than ancient ones by thaler

thaler — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:27:50 +0000

what is wrong about lust? let it be porn
maybe this “porn” was made by women for women

Comment on Prolegomena to any future dumb questions about Women’s Studies by J

Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:26:11 +0000

Spot on, Neuroskeptic. I was going to make the same point. It’s something I came across years ago in a social psychology course I was taking. The basic context of the discussion was the research showing that people basically deduce their emotional states post hoc, and often incorrectly — in the discussed case, men “excited” by hiking over a gorge mistook their heightened emotional state for attraction to a female research accomplice. Now, certainly one can question the conclusion and the research, but a fellow student “knew” that research was incorrect because he “knew” that people didn’t work that way. Our TA asked if there was a particular critique he had, but he said, “No, it’s just stupid — I’d know if I was hot for someone versus whether I was just excited cuz I’d gone over some gorge.”

As NS said, people feel like they don’t need to master new language or concepts to deal with science (admittedly in this example, so-called “soft” science). On the other hand, academics, in the sciences or humanities, can also encourage this unfortunate chain of events by being oblivious or insensitive to such confusions, especially when we are oblivious or insensitive to them among people who do want to learn, but would rather like to be talked to with patience and consideration. And as was just pointed out at a conference I went to, scientists at least often look down on fellow scientists who spend overmuch time on writing for general audiences or making work “accessible”.

Comment on Prolegomena to any future dumb questions about Women’s Studies by Neuroskeptic

Neuroskeptic — Fri, 15 May 2009 09:24:00 +0000

A fascinating post and thanks for the name-check…

Speaking as a scientist, though, I think we have more in common than you seem to imply. There certainly is a perception that science goes on in a kind of private ivory tower laboratory, or to put it simply, that “science is hard”.

But this doesn’t mean that non-scientists are willing to just accept what we scientists say. On the contrary, in many quarters there is a mindset that science amounts to an arcane and sophisticated body of deception whereas the truth is simple and accessible to anyone – most of the arguments for Creationism, for example, boil down to “Obviously evolution is too improbable to have happened!” and most global warming skepticism boils down to “It’s a bit chilly isn’t it! Global warming? As if!”

But I think humanities academics are in exactly the same position. As you point out, many lay people feel perfectly able to discuss ideology or feminism or power, etc. But they don’t feel able to talk about Althusser or Derrida or whoever. They just don’t care about them. They feel that they don’t need to master the language of the academy, they just know the truth because it’s obvious, and any academics who disagree are just over-educated eggheads…

Comment on Whoops! by mackereleconomics

mackereleconomics — Tue, 12 May 2009 23:28:41 +0000

Comment on Composition rules, especially when it’s good by Jake Garn

Jake Garn — Wed, 06 May 2009 09:50:40 +0000

Great post! Thanks so much for talking so eloquently about my post, and I’ll tell you what, I’m absolutely over-joyed about being associated in a discussion about Chris Weeks – I love that guy!