Профиль

That's brilliant. I'd want a Leonidas one.

Two can play at that game. 😉

Exactly

Little messages me so future guests can discover them. “If you’re reading this, you have read too far into this book and you are probably a moron.”

When I’m really going, yeah. But I get up before my family even on weekends so it’s pretty much a rhythm. Get up, coffee, dive in. Then push away so I’m not cutting into family time on weekend

Don't get me wrong. I do think there are jobs where if I know about your politics I would feel justified in suspecting your work is negatively biased by your views (e.g., judge, cop). But these are jobs that are more directly connected to politics unlike, say, car mechanic or accountaint.

Yeesh. Sad the "liquidate the discipline" thing came from Christian Smith.

Nevermind. Think I found that on the substack.

Really? Would really love to track that quote down if you know where to look. Did he tweet that? Blog it?

I'm aware of those statements, yep. But often when it comes to policy recommendations he doesn't take the hardline neoliberal view. Nor does he sound like Hungarian or Russian ethno-nationalists. He actually sounds more like France or Finland. I'm sure there's some message discipline there.

Lyman is a challenge to pigeonhole for me, probably because he's so prolific it's just a constant stream of confident hot-takes often without consistency. Sometimes he sounds he's advocating something inclusive and economically progressive. Other times he sounds like a Christian fundamentalist.

Yep. Collinses are wild. But even they are pretty ideological regarding the proper means to promote babies. They've been at war with Lyman Stone at times calling him a "socialist" cuz he thinks govt should make childbearing more affordable. They think only folks with smarts/money should baby-maxx.

For examples, Lyman Stone and Kevin Dolan would be the pronatalist closer to the first variety. Emma Waters and most other folks at the Heritage Foundation (and most religious pronatalists in the general population) would be the second variety.

Gosh yes. Sorry you’d even have to say this, but I guess that’s where we are.

Great question! I’ll answer in a quote skeet if that’s ok.

Yeah same. If I'm on their website it's cuz that's where they happen to post their CV. I never read the "Welcome, about me..." sections. Just show me the CV and Google Scholar entries.

I've never been peeved at a scholar for not having a webpage. But I do get frustrated when scholars don't post updated CVs and/or they don't have a Google Scholar profile. In the former case, it gives the vibe you're not doing much. In the latter, it looks like you're trying to hide something.

FWIW, I haven't had a personal website since grad school, just my department page. And I haven't ever gotten the sense that it's hindered public visibility or notoriety. But I do update my CV pretty frequently and tend to my department webpage. I think that's the more important issue.

IMHO, personal websites (PWs) are overrated. No shade at scholars who have them, but if you have a dept webpage, and you can decide what goes on them (links to CV, github, important pubs, list of awards, etc.), interested journalists will find you. PWs require upkeep w/marginal payoff. Again, IMHO.

Wow, that's despicable.