All the same, he argues, Ruse is an analytic and empiricist philosopher, not at all social-constructivist. Amundson finds Ruse's handling of the morphological traditions "less satisfactory" than of the adaptationist, Darwinian traditions, and doubts whether Richard Owen was a social progressionist just because he was influenced by Naturphilosophie.[5] He compares Ruse unfavourably with Betty Smokovitis's[6] "obsessive concern with historiography", and calls Ruse's writing style "bluff, unselfconscious, and opinionated" and finds Ruse sarcastic, "scarcely a neutral observer".