Beth- I would side with Pinker in one sense. I would point out that he also argued in the piece in the Times that there were a number of ways that her "performance" should not allay fears of her preparedness to handle the job. He pointed out that the process of being interviewed one on one is a much more arduous task cognitively than the debate format. When in an interview she was pressed and unable to escape or hide within prepared script. When in the debate she could retreat to and hide within notes and refusal to answer the question. I thought his point was that folks who were at all convinced by her performance in the debate should re-examine her fitness and focus on her a) inability to handle questions in the interview format and b) her being constantly hidden and protected from media contact except in carefully orchestrated settings. I thought the piece well written and very useful in some psychology teaching settings and an excellent way of showing how psychology can be used in informing political discussions- regardless of your affiliations or leanings politically. (Incidentally, I disagree with much that Pinker says but I did see his point in this instance. I found the article to be very unflattering but fair in its assessment of the candidate- Odd that we would see the article so differently given that it appears we have the same assessment of the candidate's fitness for the office). Tim _______________________________ Timothy O. Shearon, PhD Professor and Chair Department of Psychology The College of Idaho Caldwell, ID 83605 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; history and systems "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." Dorothy Parker --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
<<winmail.dat>>
