10-27-2006, 01:34 AM
10-27-2006, 12:23 PM
Wow, what a lot of demeaning things they manage to say while pretending to be balanced.
I didn't do a word count but i would say 3/4 or more of what is said about Michelle Dawson is negative, while nothing negative is said about Mottron (except the part about pity, which I'm not even sure the journalist viewed as a mistake). I mean, it's cool that he's more openminded than most scientists, but he's a person too. He must have some faults.
Or maybe his defects aren't important cos this is an article about science... So .... hmmmm ... double-standard, anyone???
Notice also how the person with power (Dr. Mottron) gets to define the usefulness of the person without power. If he didn't say she was "invaluable" (extremely useful), she would still be viewed as a non-person.
This article is interesting (thanks for linking it!), but the way of presenting is just ugly.
PS: About M.Dawson's self-interest in helping Mottron...
I don't think scientists are without some self-interest in their research. Even if you want to help people, you also want to be known as good at your field, maybe even want to "change the world" a little... which could get you a little bit famous.
And in a way that's OK, as in, it's not NICE but it's useful. Many useful things that get done involve some degree of self-interest.
[/rant]
for now...
I didn't do a word count but i would say 3/4 or more of what is said about Michelle Dawson is negative, while nothing negative is said about Mottron (except the part about pity, which I'm not even sure the journalist viewed as a mistake). I mean, it's cool that he's more openminded than most scientists, but he's a person too. He must have some faults.
Or maybe his defects aren't important cos this is an article about science... So .... hmmmm ... double-standard, anyone???
Notice also how the person with power (Dr. Mottron) gets to define the usefulness of the person without power. If he didn't say she was "invaluable" (extremely useful), she would still be viewed as a non-person.
This article is interesting (thanks for linking it!), but the way of presenting is just ugly.
PS: About M.Dawson's self-interest in helping Mottron...
I don't think scientists are without some self-interest in their research. Even if you want to help people, you also want to be known as good at your field, maybe even want to "change the world" a little... which could get you a little bit famous.
And in a way that's OK, as in, it's not NICE but it's useful. Many useful things that get done involve some degree of self-interest.
[/rant]
for now...
10-27-2006, 04:49 PM
Natalia Wrote:
I don't think scientists are without some self-interest in their research. Even if you want to help people, you also want to be known as good at your field,
It's even more fundamental than that. We want to keep eating on a regular basis, and that usually requires a paycheck.
10-27-2006, 06:55 PM
Are you saying this is our M?
Either way, good for her!
I'm not sure what to make of the article. It is possible the author is highlighting the differences in an effort to show how they don't mean what, on the surface, we think they mean. If he doesn't "get" it after meeting with the pair, who could we expect to "get" it? I don't want to be THAT hopeless!
Either way, good for her!
I'm not sure what to make of the article. It is possible the author is highlighting the differences in an effort to show how they don't mean what, on the surface, we think they mean. If he doesn't "get" it after meeting with the pair, who could we expect to "get" it? I don't want to be THAT hopeless!
10-27-2006, 08:21 PM
I saw nothing negative about either person featured in the article. For example, I'd not consider being "public enemy number one" to a group like CAN to be in the least bit negative. As for the other traits mentioned--so what? There's getting the job done and then there's pissing around the bush just to needlessly unruffle feathers.
10-27-2006, 10:26 PM
DW_a_mom Wrote:
Are you saying this is our M?
Either way, good for her!
I'm not sure what to make of the article. It is possible the author is highlighting the differences in an effort to show how they don't mean what, on the surface, we think they mean. If he doesn't "get" it after meeting with the pair, who could we expect to "get" it? I don't want to be THAT hopeless!
Either way, good for her!
I'm not sure what to make of the article. It is possible the author is highlighting the differences in an effort to show how they don't mean what, on the surface, we think they mean. If he doesn't "get" it after meeting with the pair, who could we expect to "get" it? I don't want to be THAT hopeless!
No, it's not M. I ran out of space in the title. That's the M in Michelle.