[evolve2017]

I'm finding this to be a fascinating look at how people, as a group, do literary criticism.

I think, if we step back from the actual words on the paper and examine the author's intent, his choice of evidence, and the mere fact that he chose to write this, we can learn just as much as from trying to decide whether or not he was talking about a population effect when talked about women before mentioning Google employees.

This is totally different from wondering about the biology. As a biologist, I think it's preposterous to start to infer biological bases to the types of psychology experiments cited. I do, however, think this could be open to debate. I feel that the undertone to the author's message is likely less unclear.

[jshevek]

"examine the author's intent"

That's tricky.

Do we take the author at face value when they make claims about their intent?

Many critics seem to think they can see the author's "true intent", and when they can't substantiate their claim, blame others for failing to see what they see.

[evolve2017]

I think that's an issue that a lot of science-minded folks disagree with.

I happen to think there's a lot about the author's time/mental state/life circumstances that one can find in the words themselves.

A much more light-hearted example is Quentin Tarrantino's insistence that he hasn't watched the Truffaut film 'And the bride wore black' - even though Kill Bill is an eerily similar remake.

Should I believe the author's product or his rationalization?