1/ For all of its warts, Goodreads is still pretty darned good.
I was trying to wrap my head around Lisa Feldman Barrett's work, and so I hop onto the Goodreads page for How Emotions are Made.
From there, it's a short hop to more scholarly sources.goodreads.com/book/show/2371…
I was trying to wrap my head around Lisa Feldman Barrett's work, and so I hop onto the Goodreads page for How Emotions are Made.
From there, it's a short hop to more scholarly sources.goodreads.com/book/show/2371…
2/ David Clarke's review seems like it's written by someone with a background in psychology; he points out that Barrett presents her theory as being close to consensus, but in more scholarly publications, she is reserved and says more work needed. goodreads.com/review/show/29…
3/ And this question ("Can anyone point me to a review that would indicate how well-received this research is received in the professional community?") contains good answers — at least, solid enough to kickstart a dive into the more scholarly sources. goodreads.com/questions/1446…
4/ So within a few seconds of hitting Goodreads, I know:
a) She was the last editor of 'The Handbook of Emotions', and I should check that.
b) She's more tempered in academic settings (time to hop onto Google Scholar?)
c) My next step: academic reviews of her book.
a) She was the last editor of 'The Handbook of Emotions', and I should check that.
b) She's more tempered in academic settings (time to hop onto Google Scholar?)
c) My next step: academic reviews of her book.
5/ Of course, Goodreads
a) loads slower than a herd of snails racing through peanut butter
b) has star ratings that are next to useless
and c) reviews that are all over the place
But it's not too bad for what it is.
a) loads slower than a herd of snails racing through peanut butter
b) has star ratings that are next to useless
and c) reviews that are all over the place
But it's not too bad for what it is.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
