As impressions go, it's interesting to see Kage on one of the first research papers that really stands out as "furry research" (for dubious reasons, the "species identity disorder" thing.) Among all the other examples of interaction you mention, that's the only one with the head of a con (the biggest con) having an author line. Seeing "Gerbasi gets Kage on the phone" as the bottom line of this current article further piques interest. OK, so this is merely a superficial connection, and old, and not cozy- thanks for the opinion.
Since we mentioned the "family friendly" PR, it leaves a topic of two camps in this social group (Mickey Mouse or Fritz the Cat?) We'll hear about that more in the future.
Regarding social media comments, that wasn't some random thing attributed to you. It was you, speaking to me, although I don't expect you recognized the handle.
Regarding "ideology", settle down- you aren't to blame for what others run with, and others bring to you and ask you to research, fashionable trends behind it, or myths that persist. However there's reasons to use strong words, and it's a wide topic that nevertheless you're part of no matter if you say "Not an IARP article". If not by pushing it yourself, then by even passively taking frameworks for granted, or having credit given. (You're not disclosing everything about that, you're quoted in JM's article - although I do like how you related use of your data there with how the Westboro Baptist Church works. I enjoyed organizing a "fursuit hug in" to coincide with one of their threats to protest a con! No show, but it was fun anyways.)
Regarding "jabs" and "straw men", this isn't my profession and I don't have time to read research papers too often. But I'm aware that these are not vague gripes "at the entirety of social research". They're positions represented by specific people and schools of thought, taking social research forward. Some are considered "dissident" from fashionable ideas currently dominating academia. Political correctness exists. You call psychoanalysis "antiquated", and so too in the future, some ideas popular among some of our friends (like JM) will be. Name one dissident? Roy Baumeister, I guess. Beyond this small internet debate, there's more meaning in this outside of furry fandom. Like, I've been proud to host the leader of an important social policy reform lobby on a political tour, and keeping an eye on what's fueling the fights. Happy to bring some of the frank and critical discussion about it for you. :) I leave it to others to challenge your specific methodologies, which some have done well since 2008. Also I always think it's really cool what the IARP research says about orientations - it's pretty tough to assume anything about anybody!
Very nice, 3 hours is dedication :)
As impressions go, it's interesting to see Kage on one of the first research papers that really stands out as "furry research" (for dubious reasons, the "species identity disorder" thing.) Among all the other examples of interaction you mention, that's the only one with the head of a con (the biggest con) having an author line. Seeing "Gerbasi gets Kage on the phone" as the bottom line of this current article further piques interest. OK, so this is merely a superficial connection, and old, and not cozy- thanks for the opinion.
Since we mentioned the "family friendly" PR, it leaves a topic of two camps in this social group (Mickey Mouse or Fritz the Cat?) We'll hear about that more in the future.
Regarding social media comments, that wasn't some random thing attributed to you. It was you, speaking to me, although I don't expect you recognized the handle.
Regarding "ideology", settle down- you aren't to blame for what others run with, and others bring to you and ask you to research, fashionable trends behind it, or myths that persist. However there's reasons to use strong words, and it's a wide topic that nevertheless you're part of no matter if you say "Not an IARP article". If not by pushing it yourself, then by even passively taking frameworks for granted, or having credit given. (You're not disclosing everything about that, you're quoted in JM's article - although I do like how you related use of your data there with how the Westboro Baptist Church works. I enjoyed organizing a "fursuit hug in" to coincide with one of their threats to protest a con! No show, but it was fun anyways.)
Regarding "jabs" and "straw men", this isn't my profession and I don't have time to read research papers too often. But I'm aware that these are not vague gripes "at the entirety of social research". They're positions represented by specific people and schools of thought, taking social research forward. Some are considered "dissident" from fashionable ideas currently dominating academia. Political correctness exists. You call psychoanalysis "antiquated", and so too in the future, some ideas popular among some of our friends (like JM) will be. Name one dissident? Roy Baumeister, I guess. Beyond this small internet debate, there's more meaning in this outside of furry fandom. Like, I've been proud to host the leader of an important social policy reform lobby on a political tour, and keeping an eye on what's fueling the fights. Happy to bring some of the frank and critical discussion about it for you. :) I leave it to others to challenge your specific methodologies, which some have done well since 2008. Also I always think it's really cool what the IARP research says about orientations - it's pretty tough to assume anything about anybody!