How to Argue Part II: On name-calling and ad hominem attacks

Many of you been following the weekend’s discussion on how to properly argue a point. Ethan Siegel originated the discussion and Isis provided an alternate perspective (Janet wondered about graphical interpretation).
I wrote a bit on the intrapersonal Overton window and how difficult it can be with staid logic and ration to move people’s opinions, even those who claim to be subject to logical discussion. In this discussion I argued that frequently people seek to claim they have been called a nasty name, when they have not, as a cognitive defensive strategy to avoid being swayed by the aforementioned logic and rational argument.
Given this, we must seek at all times not to give even the whiff of name-calling so as to defuse this tendency in others, right?
Hell, no.

More on the NIH "Understanding Interventions" program to enhance diversity in science

A comment to a prior post on the NIH RFA requesting study of factors which may be hindering or assisting efforts to enhance diversity was trapped in the spam filter. It has a number of interesting links so I thought I’d better elevate it to a full post.