In the comments on yesterday’s (very early) morning post, spartan suggested I’d done well right up to the end.
“The critiques Rebecca shared in this talk are not unique. Singling her and this talk out as anti-science while ignoring other, well-respected people who make these critiques is as ridiculous as the other ways she’s been targeted in the last couple of years. Really, it all needs to stop.”
I was mostly with you up until this point, I see nothing in Clint’s critique that is even nearly ‘as ridiculous’ as the other ways she’s been ‘targeted’ (in scare quotes as I don’t believe Clint is targeting her at all, I’m not saying that she hasn’t been targeted by anyone).
I admit that this assessment is based on information not everyone may have. So it seems fair to share the experience of watching the target being placed on Rebecca, since it’s all public anyway.
I saw it because I was following #sk5 and Skepticon on Twitter.
So, yes, this all started before the content of the talk was even known.
It is now, still without the video, an established fact that Rebecca was talking about all of evolutionary psychology.
Um, on the primate sexual dimorphism “pattern”, people might want to get familiar with the range of dimorphism found in primates.
And now Ed Clint has seen what everyone has told him he’d see and missed all the cues telling him this talk was about something else. Since we’re educating on psychology here, this is called “priming“, another field of study that has had some problems that require attention.
So, yes, targeted. A bunch of lay people whose hobby seems to be talking about how bad Rebecca and her friends are decided without seeing her talk what it was about. Then they recruited someone to be the mouthpiece for their complaints. This isn’t something they do generally. Rebecca was targeted for this criticism because of who she is and her relationship to these people.