Read on Twitter
Following @ConceptualJames& #39; overreaction to my suggestion to do a tweeted chapter by chapter review of his forthcoming book, here& #39;s a short thread on why I think he (& the IDW more broadly) display a consistent tendency for hyperbolic catastrophising when faced with criticism.
I received a copy of Helen & James& #39; book from a friend who forwarded it because they liked my previous tweeted reviews.
I& #39;ve done chapter by chapter reviews of books that I largely disagree with, like & #39;The Madness of Crowds& #39; by @DouglasKMurray. https://twitter.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1190400414971125761?s=20">https://twitter.com/C_Kavanag...
I& #39;ve done chapter by chapter reviews of books that I largely disagree with, like & #39;The Madness of Crowds& #39; by @DouglasKMurray. https://twitter.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1190400414971125761?s=20">https://twitter.com/C_Kavanag...
Books that I mostly agree with like @AdamRutherford& #39;s & #39;How to Argue with a Racist& #39; (which incidentally I also got an advance copy of and started to review prior to release, to no complaint...). https://twitter.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1222804109037694977?s=20">https://twitter.com/C_Kavanag...
And books I feel mixed about like & #39;The Coddling of the American Mind& #39; by @JonHaidt and @glukianoff. https://twitter.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1156190752986161152?s=20">https://twitter.com/C_Kavanag...
You can take a look at these looong reviews if interested but I think one point you will see pretty quickly is that while I am critical, I also have no issue acknowledging good arguments. I think my reviews are pretty balanced overall. Most commenters seem to agree.
I& #39;m a minor account so generally the threads receive limited attention but are followed by people who are interested in detailed reviews. I enjoy doing them & discussing others& #39; reactions to my point of view. I don& #39;t mind if people disagree with my take because... why would I?
Anyway, after watching James& #39; recent appearance on Rogan & finding him more reasonable than usual 
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="👇" title="Rückhand Zeigefinger nach unten" aria-label="Emoji: Rückhand Zeigefinger nach unten">, I remembered about their book & that it would be coming out soon. I thought it might be a good time to do a tweet along review as they take a few weeks. https://twitter.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1280070931340128257?s=20">https://twitter.com/C_Kavanag...
I naively imagined that, if H&J noticed, they might enjoy the minor attention that my review would bring & that they would probably be critical of some of my takes. Given that reviews are already starting to pop up & it is coming out next month I didn& #39;t anticipate much reaction.
So I tweeted out that I might do a review and asked if anyone would be interested (primarily a question targeted at people who follow me, hence no tagging). After James responded to the thread saying he didn& #39;t send me a copy his fans got irate and some suggested to sue me.
As you can see above, I then asked if either would object to my plan. Helen responded reasonably asking what I planned to do & that she would check with the publisher. James on the other hand... made implied legal threats and requested I write a peer-reviewed review instead.
For those not familiar with & #39;peer reviewed& #39; reviews, here& #39;s the thing about them:
1. They tend to have very limited word counts.
2. They are not something that you can do when commuting or putting a baby to sleep in a sling.
3. They take time because of well... peer review.
1. They tend to have very limited word counts.
2. They are not something that you can do when commuting or putting a baby to sleep in a sling.
3. They take time because of well... peer review.
In short they are a lot like work. This was something I was planning to do for entertainment, because I (strangely) enjoy engaging with the work of people I do not necessarily agree with. This is something that James is supposed to be a champion of, if you heed his other book.
In any case, James then suggested to his audience that I have pursued a relentless campaign for years against him, Helen, & Peter. This is news to me as I thought that, by and large, I ignored their output & only chimed in occasionally on relevant topics. https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1280531673810120704?s=20">https://twitter.com/Conceptua...
My thoughts on the Sokal Squared hoax are that it highlights real problems but in a rather clumsy/myopic way & that Peter & co. were naive to ignore the rather obvious IRB/ethical implications.
I suspect he is talking about my recent criticism of their cozying up to Sovereign Nations & recalling that a year or two ago I argued that Boghossian& #39;s previous relationship with Molyneux reflected a serious lack of judgment. I stand behind those takes. https://twitter.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1183665090681114625?s=20">https://twitter.com/C_Kavanag...
In any case, I& #39;m hardly someone that has been hounding James relentlessly. I think I could count our total interactions in the past few years on one hand. So this is what I mean about hyperbolic catastrophising about everything but the mildest criticism.
You can also see this in his response to the mild pushback offered by @fullydavid in this interview in which, after largely agreeing with James, he offers some critical commentary on how his behaviour on Twitter contradicts what he advocates in his book. ">https://youtu.be/08RoXYz9_...
People are free to judge if I was planning a bad faith take down or a sincere review. Given James& #39; over-reaction I think I& #39;ll either ignore the book entirely or tweet my review later when it won& #39;t invite the attention of him and some of his more emotionally fragile followers.
What would have happened if James had not overreacted? I would have written a review of their first chapter of their book that most people outside of my followers would have ignored. I would have engaged with their arguments and had absolutely no impact on their sales.
