Perhaps.... but Ms Beau has a reputation amongst other readers of mine for not being able to discuss without retreating into academia and simultaneously handing out pockets of abuse when her ideas or evidence are questioned.

Ivory towers. She's seemingly marmite flavoured amongst the Frosty Collective.

I don't mind being taught things, I don't mind being corrected on getting things wrong, I think great things come out of discussion - but being condescended to pushes the Penguin Snarktillery button. I advocated for children for a long time, I advocate for sectioned patients these days - I know a disingenuous power-play when I see it and hand-wringing with 'I'm going to explain this slowly for you idiots' is almost always an attempt to assert authority and exert control.

And ask yourself, when I feel you have misread or misrepresented my views, how often do I begin the conversation with 'for fuckssake, I can't believe I have to go through this again, SC is an idiot and here's why'.

There's a reason for that - and it has everything to do with fostering an egalitarian approach to writing and any insights which subsequently stem from it. Collaboration through codified conflict, rather than hierarchy based on who has the most knowledge.

You can think I'm wrong about this methodology if you want, you can say I'm wrong about it even - but I won't berate you for it. At least not straight out of the gate. I reserve the right to get shitty when all other communication strategies fail - as many Consultant Psychs have learned to their chagrin. :o)