Spreading confusion

I. I've spent like 2 hours over the course of two days reading all the letters in response to Sallie Tisdale's essay on her son's difficult life and how powerless she feels to help him and his children. Such a range of reaction! Such a trainwreck of views!

It wasn't until I was on page 16 or so of the letters that it hit me: of course, this is what happened to two of my grandparents' three children, their inner demons drove them down despite all the advantages of their upbringing, and why? and what if it happens again? (Did all the letter writers have some version of the same fear set off? Is it that universal?)

II. It seems like people have been slagging off less on Judith Warner, even though she's back blogging at the Times. Fewer flames means fewer links means I hadn't checked in in quite a while. But, oh Lord, look how she's given up entirely on social science, and (as far as I can tell) in the future will only interpret studies in light of the lifestyles of their authors.

WELL. That'll show them.

Comments

[Jody]

Thanks for pointing me in the direction of Tisdale. I've always liked her, because she writes about things that other people are often afraid to talk about. Or don't have the experience to talk about.

When I read her, though, I miss the old Mothers Who Think. Give me Salon c. 1998, I think.

Then I realize I'm getting old.

One of my readers just said that Warner's blog is hidden behind the Select wall. Could this be true? Could the Times be so idiotic? I can't tell! (We have a Sunday subscription and I'm loathe to sign off -- because I never can remember my damn password -- and so the Select/not-Select thing isn't always clear to me.)

I just linked to a study mentioned by Warner, being done by one of the social scientists she's liking at a moment. And someone noticed that the survey doesn't have an informed consent at the outset. So I'm feeling rather "bleh" towards Warner and her associates at the moment. Although it's my fault for not noticing the omission.

I've been trying for months now to summarize some of the child-development/child-psychology research on multiple-birth children. It turns into a mess, because you can see how cohort/generational concerns shape the inquiry. There's always the sense that something else, something closer to wisdom, lurks behind the disciplinary tropes.

But I'm still too much a believer in science and inquiry to think there's any good alternative to the answers this research is getting. I mean, it will continue to evolve, but it's still telling us something worth knowing, and not because of the researchers' personal lives.

I've always thought Warner was more or less idiotic though. Trend reporting makes my teeth hurt.

[luolin]

Yes, Warner is select (tried the link here and from Jody's blog).

It was a sign of my changing outlook when I realized back in the 90s that "Mothers Who Think" was my favorite section of Salon.