1 hr 28 min

95: James Lindsay and the Grievance Studies Hoax, Part 2 I Don't Speak German

    • Politics

Yes, we're back with Jimmy Concepts, reliable source of dishonest idiocy.  This time, as a kind of 'bonus feature' to our last episode, Daniel reads out a representative selection of reviewer comments on some of the fake papers submitted to academic journals by Lindsay, Pluckrose and Boghossian during the so-called 'Sokal Squared' prank.  It's very revealing... albeit of something we already knew: namely that Lindsay and his cohorts are absolutely full of shit.
Content Warnings.
Podcast Notes:
Please consider donating to help us make the show and stay independent.  Patrons get exclusive access to one full extra episode a month.
Daniel's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/danielharper
Jack's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=4196618
IDSG Twitter: https://twitter.com/idsgpod
Daniel's Twitter: @danieleharper
Jack's Twitter: @_Jack_Graham_
IDSG on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/i-dont-speak-german/id1449848509?ls=1
 
Show Notes for 95:
Areo Magazine, Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship ( https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ )
Full listing of Grievance Studies Papers and Reviews ( https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19tBy_fVlYIHTxxjuVMFxh4pqLHM_en18 ).
"BJ-Gay" reviewer's comment:
- This paper claims to apply a combination of psychoanalysis and feminism to examine and critique
styles of masculinity evident within grappling-based martial arts subcultures. Overall, I found the
paper very difficult to read and cannot recommend it for publication. This is due to a combination of factors, namely:
- A densely theoretical, often confusing style of prose in many parts of the paper;
- An inconsistent application of theoretical concepts, most of which were not defined with any
clarity for the reader;
- Overuse of certain source material, as well as a fairly consistent tendency to misuse sources in
support of claims that the papers/books in question do not actually support;
- Many sweeping generalizations about (all) men involved in (all) grappling-based martial arts;
- A tokenistic inclusion of discussions of women in these spaces, which was not reconciled with the analysis in any meaningful way;
- A central thesis which is not, to my knowledge, supported by any of the empirical research in this area (despite the fact that several such studies were cited in the paper);
- Bizarre, even farcical concluding recommendations which indicate a lack of knowledge about the martial arts in question, as well as a tenuous and selective grasp of feminism as applied to sport.
- There is simply too much wrong with the paper to offer a more robust criticism as a reviewer. I recommend that the author spends far more time acquainting themselves with both the theoretical and empirical literature at the intersection of sport, martial arts and masculinity studies before attempting a re-write. The current offering sits far short of the standards of scholarship expected of academic publication, particularly in a journal such as Men and Masculinities.
https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1444709707864674306
https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1402338497617285120
"The Joke's On You" reviewer comment:
- Another sign of lack of integration is that there is not clear definition of the comedic. The very first paragraph offers one too narrow for the essay. Northrup Frye provides some useful definitions of irony, parody, and satire in his classic work, Anatomy of Criticism. Note, too, that Cynthia Willett, in Irony in the Age of Empire, shares a similar thesis with this essay, namely that irony works against arrogance and ignorance. That source should be acknowledged even as the author discusses her own different approach, and might help the author clarify definitions of the comedic and integrate argument.
- Yet another sign of lack of integration are the mixed references from Oliver to Dotson, Bailey, e

Yes, we're back with Jimmy Concepts, reliable source of dishonest idiocy.  This time, as a kind of 'bonus feature' to our last episode, Daniel reads out a representative selection of reviewer comments on some of the fake papers submitted to academic journals by Lindsay, Pluckrose and Boghossian during the so-called 'Sokal Squared' prank.  It's very revealing... albeit of something we already knew: namely that Lindsay and his cohorts are absolutely full of shit.
Content Warnings.
Podcast Notes:
Please consider donating to help us make the show and stay independent.  Patrons get exclusive access to one full extra episode a month.
Daniel's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/danielharper
Jack's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=4196618
IDSG Twitter: https://twitter.com/idsgpod
Daniel's Twitter: @danieleharper
Jack's Twitter: @_Jack_Graham_
IDSG on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/i-dont-speak-german/id1449848509?ls=1
 
Show Notes for 95:
Areo Magazine, Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship ( https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ )
Full listing of Grievance Studies Papers and Reviews ( https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19tBy_fVlYIHTxxjuVMFxh4pqLHM_en18 ).
"BJ-Gay" reviewer's comment:
- This paper claims to apply a combination of psychoanalysis and feminism to examine and critique
styles of masculinity evident within grappling-based martial arts subcultures. Overall, I found the
paper very difficult to read and cannot recommend it for publication. This is due to a combination of factors, namely:
- A densely theoretical, often confusing style of prose in many parts of the paper;
- An inconsistent application of theoretical concepts, most of which were not defined with any
clarity for the reader;
- Overuse of certain source material, as well as a fairly consistent tendency to misuse sources in
support of claims that the papers/books in question do not actually support;
- Many sweeping generalizations about (all) men involved in (all) grappling-based martial arts;
- A tokenistic inclusion of discussions of women in these spaces, which was not reconciled with the analysis in any meaningful way;
- A central thesis which is not, to my knowledge, supported by any of the empirical research in this area (despite the fact that several such studies were cited in the paper);
- Bizarre, even farcical concluding recommendations which indicate a lack of knowledge about the martial arts in question, as well as a tenuous and selective grasp of feminism as applied to sport.
- There is simply too much wrong with the paper to offer a more robust criticism as a reviewer. I recommend that the author spends far more time acquainting themselves with both the theoretical and empirical literature at the intersection of sport, martial arts and masculinity studies before attempting a re-write. The current offering sits far short of the standards of scholarship expected of academic publication, particularly in a journal such as Men and Masculinities.
https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1444709707864674306
https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1402338497617285120
"The Joke's On You" reviewer comment:
- Another sign of lack of integration is that there is not clear definition of the comedic. The very first paragraph offers one too narrow for the essay. Northrup Frye provides some useful definitions of irony, parody, and satire in his classic work, Anatomy of Criticism. Note, too, that Cynthia Willett, in Irony in the Age of Empire, shares a similar thesis with this essay, namely that irony works against arrogance and ignorance. That source should be acknowledged even as the author discusses her own different approach, and might help the author clarify definitions of the comedic and integrate argument.
- Yet another sign of lack of integration are the mixed references from Oliver to Dotson, Bailey, e

1 hr 28 min