No, but like… dude, you could flip half of those supposed traits between categories and it would read exactly the same. That’s why I called it astrology.
Perhaps you just did a bad job of presenting the book’s ideas, but I’ve just read through a summary of it and it didn’t exactly make me reconsider my knee jerk reaction.
Thanks for explaining. I did a bad job explaining it, but I’m only taking a short break irl and am just jumping into this conversation. I’ve removed that section of my comment.
The book explains this in more detail and I recommend it. We don’t get much deep discussion into what it means to be conservative/liberal and the purpose of the book isn’t to go into that but it does provide a framework. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs
But now your comment is just “here’s 10 hour read that explains everything, I will not elaborate” like in this post: https://sh.itjust.works/post/26206134
You can at least leave info about what it should explain, at best you can summarise, but it is possible that you will not persuade people to read that.
From the wiki page, it looks like the idea behind the book is viable, but nothing is scientific about it, no research, no further developments, it’s just how the author sees the system work. This may be insightful but should be taken with a large grain of salt
Have you read it? Don’t judge too quickly!Actually on second thought nvm. If that’s you’re response then I’m out :)
No, but like… dude, you could flip half of those supposed traits between categories and it would read exactly the same. That’s why I called it astrology.
Perhaps you just did a bad job of presenting the book’s ideas, but I’ve just read through a summary of it and it didn’t exactly make me reconsider my knee jerk reaction.
Thanks for explaining. I did a bad job explaining it, but I’m only taking a short break irl and am just jumping into this conversation. I’ve removed that section of my comment.
The book explains this in more detail and I recommend it. We don’t get much deep discussion into what it means to be conservative/liberal and the purpose of the book isn’t to go into that but it does provide a framework. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs
But now your comment is just “here’s 10 hour read that explains everything, I will not elaborate” like in this post: https://sh.itjust.works/post/26206134
You can at least leave info about what it should explain, at best you can summarise, but it is possible that you will not persuade people to read that.
From the wiki page, it looks like the idea behind the book is viable, but nothing is scientific about it, no research, no further developments, it’s just how the author sees the system work. This may be insightful but should be taken with a large grain of salt