The Chronicle of Higher Education website has a blog about “ideas, culture, and the arts [that] features some of the best minds in academic and policy circles”. One of the bloggers — Gina Barreca, a professor of English and Feminist Theory at the University of Connecticut and a humorist — wrote about being older than her students:
I think about the fact that my students and I no longer listen to same music or revere the same actors; I wonder about the implications of the fact that even some of the smart ones like I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell.
I pointed this out to Tucker Max (author of I Hope . . . ). He replied:
I like how she implies that some of her students are stupid. Great prof.
I thought that was a great point. I asked if I could use it on this blog. He agreed, and added:
The other thing about her statement is that she implicitly scoffs at the notion that someone smart could–gasp–DISAGREE with her. It doesn’t even occur to her that she might be wrong, that her worldview might be the one that needs examining. To her, nothing legitimate can exist outside of her prejudices and opinions. Even the idea that it could is rejected out of hand.
I replied:
Yeah, she hasn’t read your book but it must be ridiculous. Of course. I praised the film Gladiator (pre-Oscar) to someone I knew and she said, to a friend, that this made me an inferior person. Because Gladiator was popular, it must be bad. If I liked it, there was something wrong with me.
Tucker replied:
Exactly–the idea that THEY might be wrong doesn’t even occur to them. Like it’s not even in the realm of possibility.
These are the same people that Nassim Taleb rails against, and the same people who read Socrates, and completely miss the point, but still praise it because they think they’re supposed to. And these are the people that the internet/the age of connectivity is destroying. Because you can’t hide behind status anymore. Results are measurable, and everyone is on the playing field now.
I agree.
Wait, did I read that correctly- Seth Roberts corresponds with Tucker Max? Seth, if that is true, you really need to let more people know. It could drive a whole new demographic to your site, one that is ready to hear about the virtues and possibilities opened up by self experimenting. I mean, any one who is a fan of Tucker Max, being suspicious of the received wisdom concerning men, women, sex, romance, and love, would also be likely to be suspicious of the received wisdom in other areas. Some of those, having already been conducting experiments of sorts in the Venusian arts, might readily take to self experimentation in other areas as well. You should correspond with Roissy.
Um…huh?
In any event, Seth, your point is perfectly illustrated at https://rawfoodsos.com where a web designer named Denise Minger has completely destroyed T. Colin Campbell (of China Study fame.)
Seriously…after just a few blog posts, there is nothing left of him but a smoking crater.
You two read like bitter old ladies — taking an essay intended to humorously lampoon the generation gap, labelling it smug, then invoking Socrates as a defense. It’s like an awkward satire.
What are the measurable results Tucker is referring to that prevent this prof from “hiding behind status” while he has been liberated by internet connectivity (assuming, ridiculously, that we take her humorous essay as seriously as you have)? If there are measurable results why don’t you cite them instead of posting yourselves agreeing with each other?
This post is like two people in a political party griping about how the people in another political party can’t consider the possibility they are wrong — while not discussing that they themselves might be wrong, or providing anything other than subjective statements of opinion to support their view.
Why not supply some sort of substantive insight into how it is that Tucker’s book is “right” (whatever that would mean), or how it represents progress, or whatever else you think it does that would back up the perspective you are supposedly defending as “right” in contrast to this humourist’s “wrong.”
Seconding MT.
At least one thing she’s definitely “wrong” about: her website is truly hideous and does not make me want to spend any time at all learning anything about her. But maybe that’s a side effect of her ageism, purposely having a website that looks ten years younger than it is.
Your blog has mysteriously turned medium green with an olive green stripe at the top– this makes the main page harder to read.
The comments are still at the pleasant old format of white with a green border– the main page seems to have lost the white overlay, since I note that it’s got an olive green stripe at the top which doesn’t interfere with the text.
Is there a theory about why white men are magic and white women pedestrian – along with the rest of mankind.
What’s going on there? Why such an incalculable distance between what white men do and have done and white women.
Some people expect women and others to do something useful – but it’s just not happening, is it?
You two jump to conclusions as quickly as the prof you criticize!
She clearly has an initial dislike of Max’s book, but there are multiple implications of her students liking it even though she doesn’t. These range from her students being stupid, her students being unexposed to better material though smart, or that she is passing up something good because of a knee-jerk reaction. If that sentence can plausibly be read as her pondering whether she is wrong, you can’t say that thought isn’t “even in the realm of possibility”.
MT, one measurable result is book sales. Another is name recognition.
Nancy, thanks for pointing that out.
B Riley, yes, that is a fair criticism. She does muse about the popularity rather than take it as an example of the world going to hell. As you say, one of several possible explanations is that she is considering the possibility that she is wrong. I think it’s far more likely that she has made up her mind about the book (which she hasn’t read) and now is deciding what it means that “even” “smart” students like it. It is a harsh judgment on X to wonder why “even some smart people” like X. And if X is a book you haven’t read, there is a lot of “I must be right” involved, even if it doesn’t rise to absolute certainty.
I think I agree with this except… what was good about Gladiator? I thought it was boring; like a long episode of Xena Warrior Princess.
G, I liked the raw emotion Crowe displayed in many scenes. An attractive gloominess permeated the picture.
Seth,
criticizing A for criticizing B when A has not read B’s books seems self-defeating when “A has not read B’s books” is a mere assumption.
LemmusLemmus, if she’s read more than 1% of the book I am happy to apologize.
I agree with MT on this. Did you not understand that Barecca was _joking_?
Hey, and you know what? I didn’t like the movie Dumb and Dumber…I guess that makes me a bad person, right? Obviously I’m a snob, only an elitist snob would dislike Dumb and Dumber; after all, it was a very popular movie. Any time a well-educated person expresses dislike or disdain for something popular, it’s because they’re a snob. What other reason could there possibly be?
Phil, joking about what?
Have you asked Barreca if she has actually read 1%+ of Tucker’s book?
Have you asked for a comment or clarification?
Publicly labelling her as obstinate and stubborn in her worldview without finding out her point-of-view seems like quite a jump and one hell of an assumption.
Given that she is a ‘humourist’, there’s also the chance that she was making light of the age gap with a facetious remarkâexactly how I did yesterday when I said that I cannot possibly be a mentor to someone who reads and enjoys Dan Brown novels.
By the way, I’m not entirely sure Bareca was referring to the book, rather than the movie, for which you can watch the trailer here.
Seth, joking about judging her students’ intelligence by the fact that they like the book or movie “I hope they serve beer in hell.” That was a joke.
Phil, thanks for explaining that. I read it differently: she really does wonder what it means that even the smart ones like a book she considers stupid. It vaguely resembles a Polish joke, I suppose, with I Hope They . . . in the place of the Polish people.
John, to say “I cannot possibly be a mentor to someone who reads and enjoys Dan Brown novels” strikes me as humorous. You seem to be making fun of your dislike of Dan Brown. Whereas to say “I’m amazed that even some of our smart employees like Dan Brown” doesn’t strike me as humorous at all. If she had used a smiley face after her sentence I would agree you, however. For example, “I’m amazed that even some of our smart employees like Dan Brown
” comes across much differently than the sentence with no smiley face.
Book sales and name recognition tell us nothing about the relative merits of the positions taken by the prof and Tucker. They tell us something about the relative popularity. Which is about as meaningless as it is possible to get. Or should we assume The China Study is right and Denise Minger’s criticisms are inaccurate because she isn’t as well known as Campbell? And Gary Taubes should shut up because Dean Ornish has sold more books? Perhaps you could add that Tucker has a law degree as a measurable result — and he went to Duke too.
All of which is beside the real point — the author was making casual fun of the generation gap, and the critique is misplaced.
And speaking of Denise Minger, I’d be interested hearing in Seth’s professional opinion about Denises’s re-evaluation of Campbell’s China data.
https://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/06/final-china-study-response-html/
It seems impressive to me, but I don’t know correlations from coriander.
Alex, I haven’t looked closely at Minger’s analyses. So I can’t give an informed opinion.
Seth, I didn’t assume that you had read her analysis — I was suggesting that you might be interested in it, given your past posts about Gary Taubes and about non-professionals doing significant work.