Read on Twitter
Following @ConceptualJames' overreaction to my suggestion to do a tweeted chapter by chapter review of his forthcoming book, here'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' book from a friend who forwarded it because they liked my previous tweeted reviews.
I've done chapter by chapter reviews of books that I largely disagree with, like 'The Madness of Crowds' by @DouglasKMurray. https://twitter.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1190400414971125761?s=20
I've done chapter by chapter reviews of books that I largely disagree with, like 'The Madness of Crowds' by @DouglasKMurray. https://twitter.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1190400414971125761?s=20
Books that I mostly agree with like @AdamRutherford's 'How to Argue with a Racist' (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
And books I feel mixed about like 'The Coddling of the American Mind' by @JonHaidt and @glukianoff. https://twitter.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1156190752986161152?s=20
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'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' reactions to my point of view. I don't mind if people disagree with my take because... why would I?
Anyway, after watching James' recent appearance on Rogan & finding him more reasonable than usual 
, 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
, 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
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'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'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 'peer reviewed' reviews, here'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
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'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
In any case, I'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.
People are free to judge if I was planning a bad faith take down or a sincere review. Given James' over-reaction I think I'll either ignore the book entirely or tweet my review later when it won'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.
What happened instead? I needed to waste my time responding to James' & his followers' overreactions and veiled legal insinuations. Then spend time making this thread to address his broader misrepresentation. So much for promoting 'Impossible Conversations' that focus on ideas.
