But eventually, I start to figure things out -- human nature-type things. Like, you know, it's easier to be right when I argue with with what my opponent didn't say.
I've seen this played out around the web regarding this book. Here's an author's attempt to engage the questions and objections.
I *love* ideas. I actually derive a perverse joy from being wrong. I don't know if anyone can identify with that. Maybe some other sicko can. But it means a light clicked on, and I've learned something, and here's something else I can explore now.
But, then again, it's also fun to invade Straw Man City with a torch. Easy, too. Only problem is, it's not strategic, because it doesn't matter. And much of the criticism I've seen takes aim at things the book doesn't actually say at all.
Not sure why that happens. Maybe people immediately assume things, like "Oh, then you must be one of those..." and run with it.
Maybe I've done that before, too. I like me better when I don't, though.