What do you think of Michael Savage's comments?

[LiquidMidnight]

Michael Savage would do well do emulate your above post in providing actual firsthand experience rather than using broad generalizations. :

I've only read the first two pages so far, but I wanted to respond.

....actually, I disagree. Simply giving firsthand experience in this instance to provide empirical evidence for an argument holds no water just for the simple fact that psychology, like just about every social science, is based on percentages and majorities. This is why statistics are so important to social science. An ANOVA score is going to tell you more about a particular phenomenon than knowing how your brother's kid acts.

However, I'm not advocating that just because it's in a peer-reviewed journal, than it's great science, nor am I saying that experts are always right. I'm stating that oftentimes these talking heads, such as Savage, think that they are Psy.d-trained therapists just because they are good people watchers. Savage, holding a Ph.D, which means he probably completed a dissertation, should know better than to do that. People should be skeptical about ADD, especially since there are millions of dollars tied up in its diagnosis (and I'm already pretty cynical about the medical industry), but there is a right way and a wrong way about looking for the truth. Plus, as has already been stated, there is a huge difference between ADD and autism.

 

[jomahu]

What remnants of civility in whose public dialogue, and what culture? This sounds interesting, please, tell me more!

I've not seen a whole lot of civility since early 1999, IIRC. Our culture more resembles a petri dish teeming with enterococcus coli, pseudomonas, and staphylococcus aureas than the world's richest <cough, cough> nation. The public dialog is marked by the incipient spin of the apathy most people show. We're a beaten people, for the most part, and we know the system cannot be fixed. It would require too much time and effort to go back to the basics, and besides, there's probably a law against doing such a thing anyway.

Most people I talk to are completely disaffected, uninformed, and apathetic when it comes to disussing important issues.

yeh, i hate to break it to you, but it's always been that way. privilege breeds lethargy....until the bubble bursts.

 

[ElMon]

I've only read the first two pages so far, but I wanted to respond.

....actually, I disagree. Simply giving firsthand experience in this instance to provide empirical evidence for an argument holds no water just for the simple fact that psychology, like just about every social science, is based on percentages and majorities. This is why statistics are so important to social science. An ANOVA score is going to tell you more about a particular phenomenon than knowing how your brother's kid acts.

However, I'm not advocating that just because it's in a peer-reviewed journal, than it's great science, nor am I saying that experts are always right. I'm stating that oftentimes these talking heads, such as Savage, think that they are Psy.d-trained therapists just because they are good people watchers. Savage, holding a Ph.D, which means he probably completed a dissertation, should know better than to do that. People should be skeptical about ADD, especially since there are millions of dollars tied up in its diagnosis (and I'm already pretty cynical about the medical industry), but there is a right way and a wrong way about looking for the truth. Plus, as has already been stated, there is a huge difference between ADD and autism.

Absolutely. +1. What I was saying is that I have more respect for people who give opinions based off of first-hand knowledge than those who over-generalize and regurgatate other's suspicions. That doesn't necessarily make them right or wrong though, as you pointed out.

 

[GregC]

Hang on there. Look at the release put out by his network:
Link Removed
In other words, he didn't spend more time on autism until the following week, only after people called him (and his network) on his vitriolic nonsense. And even then, did he apologize or admit his comments were radically removed from reality? According to his press release, nope--he merely "clarified" his statements. That's really bleeping weak, IMO. This guy loves to scream about how people should take responsibility for their actions. He should follow his own advice.

Is anyone going to defend what he actually said before he went into damage control mode?

It seems the answer is "no".

 

[Alan Vorse]

I don't know. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that so many people are coming out in defense of this guy. In the Twin Cities, they play his show late at night. I kind of got the impression that the station carrying him was a little ashamed and embarassed by his antics and therefore gave him a later slot. Even Michael Medved and Dennis Praeger kind of like to play down the fact that they are on the same network.

At best, I kind of thought he was putting on a bit of a show. Like this is supposed to be the most extreme case of what a conservative is supposed to be like. Some even theorised that he purposely over-did it to make other conservatives seem more sane. I guess what scares me is some people view this guy as a prophet. Frankly I think he likes to play on people's fears.

 

[unbasslichkeit]

I guess what scares me is some people view this guy as a prophet. Frankly I think he likes to play on people's fears.

LIke I said earlier: I miss Art Bell.