Have you read the book? The entire premise was that he was debunking claims and ended up being persuaded by them; this seems like the opposite of motivated cognition.
I won't deny that it seems fairly one sided but it does seem like taking opposing views would be difficult, since he uses the same citations as groups he disagrees with and presumably is better with statistics as a statistics professor; I don't mean to say that one should be totally convinced by his arguments, but more convinced than I should be by all the arguments without statistics I've heard before which were about 50 times as much motivated cognition.
Have you read the book? The entire premise was that he was debunking claims and ended up being persuaded by them; this seems like the opposite of motivated cognition.
Yes. I have read it. I'm familiar with what he claims he is doing, and frankly, I couldn't tell if it was dishonesty or general lack of self-awareness about his own cognitive processes.
This is not to say that he doesn't make good points on occasion. And a lot of the responses to him demonstrated about as bad motivated cognition or worse.
There's a January 2002 Scientific American that had m...
This is the fifth bimonthly What Are You Working On? thread. Previous threads are here. So here's the question:
What are you working on?
Here are some guidelines: