| Comment | > You could have utilised your comment here to make a objectively explore the situation by asking me a question, but instead you went for assumptions about my character because **I said something you don't understand**... not very scientific of you.
> As I said, my perspectives are niche, but they are backed up by decades of research and philosophical thought. I am looking for people who have the ability to explore radical concepts they are not necessarily already familiar with, which requires a rather more flexible mindset than your own.
No, you don't understand your own point. None of what you said is anti-academic. You don't even realise what you stand for. You are not anti-academic if you utilise research. You sound very much like someone who pretends to be radical, when you're actually very normal. None of what you are saying is forward thinking or niche. You're a buzzword charlatan that likes philosophy and neuroscience just like the rest of people who engage in that sort of academia. |
|---|