![]() ![]() While the facade of science probably lends an air of legitimacy to what otherwise would be a book of just-so stories, it completely falls flat to a scientifically-minded audience. This is a classic failure mode in the search for truth mining the literature for claims that support an a priori belief, rather than synthesizing the literature into a coherent worldview. ![]() They are either studies about rats that she's extrapolated to human behavior, or they are unreplicated studies of n<50. While there are quite a few citations (none of which I followed up on), the studies she describes simply /reek/ of bad science. ![]() However, my overwhelming feeling throughout the book was that Nagoski had ideas that empirically seemed to work out, and was trying to justify them through the literature. Nagoski often refers to "the science," claiming that whatever study proves her point. ![]() The bad: I mentioned suspension of disbelief. To that extent, if you can suspend your disbelief, this is probably a great read. Evidently there is good advice here, and it definitely cleared up some misconceptions I had around women's sexuality. The good: several of my female friends have told me that this book changed their lives. And so, as a man, I realize I am not the target audience, which makes this a difficult thing to review. I read this on the recommendation of a friend who suggested it might help clear things up for me. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |