Louann Brizendine is a charlatan; "The Female Brain" is a pack of lies

[kragen]

A friend of mine recently posted this link to her blog: Excerpt: 'The Female Brain': Learn What Women Really ThinkDon't forward around nonsense like this! Brizendine's book (excerpted at the above URL) has been rather thoroughly discredited. ABC's failure to update their web page to make this clear reveals the thin nature of their commitment to

Comments

[dancingyel]

I agree that the book has many things wrong with it...however, calling someone a charlatan strikes me as a strong and rather personal attack. Knowing Louann and her general credentials, I'm probably biased towards giving her the benefit of the doubt on the dishonesty vs. confusion issue. I understand that others aren't necessarily willing to do so, but there's no need for name-calling.

[kragen]

Do you believe that name-calling serves no function in general, or in this specific case? If it's in this specific case, when do you think there would be a need for name-calling?

[dancingyel]

I think name-calling, in general, only serves to aggravate people. I suppose if the goal is to do so, then name-calling is good. However, I think that in most cases, the goal is to have a conversation about a topic, and even if it's a heated conversation, there's no need to do extra things to create anger.

[kragen]

Well, in this case, I don't really care what Brizendine thinks, and whether she gets aggravated or not. I'm not interested in having a conversation with her, because in her book, she's demonstrated a lack of integrity that prevents me from drawing any conclusions to any factual statements she might make.

My point in posting this is to warn people that, if they're interested in a conversation investigating what things actually are the case and what things are not, then they should disregard what Brizendine has to say, because she's engaged in a different enterprise; what she's writing doesn't derive from some kind of independent investigation of the truth, but is, rather, bullshit.

I think that disseminating this kind of negative reputational information serves an important function in the process of discourse; by directing attention away from the charlatans and bullshit artists, it makes it possible to actually have a productive conversation.

[kragen]

I found an archive link to On Bullshit.

[dancingyel]

I thought the point of your post was to have a conversation with people who read your LiveJournal, but I guess not.

I know that for me personally, this kind of post makes me less likely to believe you, simply because of the amount of vitriol.

[kragen]

Well, of course I am interested in having a conversation; just not with Brizendine.

It makes me terribly sad to think that I'm losing credibility in your eyes. I thought that, despite the vitriol, I had avoided making any inadequately-backed-up assertions. I guess you're saying that the vitriol makes it hard for you to notice whether that's true or not?

[dancingyel]

When I said that I think name-calling aggravates people, I didn't mean just the person at whom it's directed. That's why I said that I don't think it's conducive to a conversation, even one that doesn't include the object of derision.

I don't know how adequately backed-up the assertions you make are, mainly because when they're made with such vitriol, I tend to not want to explore further. It just ends up leaving a bad taste in my mouth.