Read on Twitter
Here we go again. Thread. " #bropenscience" again being slung as an insult & epithet used to stigmatize and shut down debate.
With sidebars about about who NOT to engage with. Thread ending in END.
With sidebars about about who NOT to engage with. Thread ending in END.
Sidebar: One trick is to NOT engage with academic SJWs.
But how do you know?
1. They embrace/encourage use of terms like #bropenscience and other SJW terms such as #punchingdown
But how do you know?
1. They embrace/encourage use of terms like #bropenscience and other SJW terms such as #punchingdown
2. They blatantly violate at least 2 of Merton's Norms of Science:
A. Universalism: Scientific claims are to be judged on their merits, not the statuses (demographic, eminence) of those making them.
B. Organized skepticism: Scientific claims are to be subject to intense scrutiny
A. Universalism: Scientific claims are to be judged on their merits, not the statuses (demographic, eminence) of those making them.
B. Organized skepticism: Scientific claims are to be subject to intense scrutiny
Merton's Norms are (supposedly) some of the background practices (if they are adhered to!) that justify giving science
stand-alone levels of credibility.
stand-alone levels of credibility.
This @blackgoatpod podcast:
https://podbean.com/media/share/pb-9dz47-c38830?utm_campaign=w_share_ep&utm_medium=dlink&utm_source=w_share
is a great intro to Merton's Norms. It is also run by leaders of @improvingpsych in the Psych Science reform movement, Vazire, Tullett, Srivastava.
https://podbean.com/media/share/pb-9dz47-c38830?utm_campaign=w_share_ep&utm_medium=dlink&utm_source=w_share
is a great intro to Merton's Norms. It is also run by leaders of @improvingpsych in the Psych Science reform movement, Vazire, Tullett, Srivastava.
Here are @improvingpsych's mission statement & guidelines. Notice the embrace of "diverse views" and criticism.
https://improvingpsych.org/mission/
https://improvingpsych.org/mission/
Note that it *does* reject incivility. Hold on to your hats (Hah, I typo'd "hates" -- which might just have been a Freudian slip -- who said he was wrong about *everything*?).
Let's see who is being incivil, shall we?
Let's see who is being incivil, shall we?
The brouhaha started when this paper got publicly posted.
Its very short, you should read it.
tl;dr: It argues that pre-registration is "redundant" because it does not improve theory.
Its very short, you should read it.
tl;dr: It argues that pre-registration is "redundant" because it does not improve theory.
(for my lay followers: Pre-registration is a practice that enables other scientists to distinguish bona fide testing of actual scientific hypotheses from post hoc storytelling).
Metaphorically:
Metaphorically:
Here is the paper:
https://psyarxiv.com/x36pz
Here is the title page, so you can see I am not making up my own unjustified histrionic take on the paper. Its title really is "Pre-reg is redundant at best."
https://psyarxiv.com/x36pz
Here is the title page, so you can see I am not making up my own unjustified histrionic take on the paper. Its title really is "Pre-reg is redundant at best."
This initiated several comments and discussion threads on Twitter.
Here is an entire thread on it: https://twitter.com/GordPennycook/status/1190301613853986816
Here is an entire thread on it: https://twitter.com/GordPennycook/status/1190301613853986816
Here is the end of a good thread:
https://twitter.com/psmaldino/status/1190042506941095937
BUT (if you are interested) a really excellent convo among a slew of psych scientists ensued. Scroll up for thread, down for convo.
https://twitter.com/psmaldino/status/1190042506941095937
BUT (if you are interested) a really excellent convo among a slew of psych scientists ensued. Scroll up for thread, down for convo.
Take some time to cuddle up with those threads and comments. Is anyone being incivil? Ad hominem? Harsh even? Many *criticize* the claims, but do they go beyond that?
I thought the science reform movement basically resolved its "tone" debate after the great @talyarkoni (meant earnestly, despite my own sometimes hot disagreements w/him) posted this terrific blog: https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2016/10/01/there-is-no-tone-problem-in-psychology/
Apparently, tho, it only resolved "tone" with respect to challenging the eminent, the old guard. But if a "tone" problem is alleged to infringe on Social Justice? #bropenscience rides again. And if you stand accused? You better run and hide or risk #tbom.
Sidebar: How to avoid being targeted by an online Twitter Academic Social Justice Outrage Mob?
NEVER EVER directly engage.
Sooo:
NEVER EVER directly engage.
Sooo:
https://twitter.com/BMtHart/status/1190401260312309761
This is a tweet from someone PUSHING BACK on the ridiculous accusations of the form:
"white guy after white guy..."
Sounds familiar? It should, if you follow me.
Here we go again:
"White women white womening" anyone?
This is a tweet from someone PUSHING BACK on the ridiculous accusations of the form:
"white guy after white guy..."
Sounds familiar? It should, if you follow me.
Here we go again:
"White women white womening" anyone?
Twitter is a public forum but some act like their publicly posted comments are somehow personal private property -- and if you dare to critically comment? You are Sealioning, #punchingdown, "piling on" (even if it is just a single comment), etc.
So I won't retweet a thread going near viral merely among psychologists (39 retws and 115 likes since yesterday).
But if you do a Tw search for "Yay Jenny" (Jenny is the "white guy after white guy" original tw'er; "Yay Jenny" is another thread) it should come right up.
IF YOU FIND IT PLEASE SAVE ME FROM ANOTHER OUTRAGE MOB by
VERY MUCH NOT NOT NOT REPLYING TO THAT THREAD. PLEASE JUST REPLY HERE.
If that guy gets #tbom, I will never do this again. Your embedded academic dissident will disappear from Twitter.
Please, just reply here.
VERY MUCH NOT NOT NOT REPLYING TO THAT THREAD. PLEASE JUST REPLY HERE.
If that guy gets #tbom, I will never do this again. Your embedded academic dissident will disappear from Twitter.
Please, just reply here.
BUT, if you do roam those threads? You will violation after violation of Merton's Norms.
Why, supposedly, should we NOT criticize the paper? Because the authors have done prior good work.
Dan Gilbert, Phil Zimbardo, John Bargh & Susan Fiske could def get behind that argument.
Why, supposedly, should we NOT criticize the paper? Because the authors have done prior good work.
Dan Gilbert, Phil Zimbardo, John Bargh & Susan Fiske could def get behind that argument.
(For the uninitiated: That crew listed above? Pushed back HARD when the science reform movement first started -- all are eminent social psychologists). For a LONG (but great) read on this history:
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2016/09/21/what-has-happened-down-here-is-the-winds-have-changed/
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2016/09/21/what-has-happened-down-here-is-the-winds-have-changed/
Blatant insults are flung at those criticizing. Critics are called "Phobic", "ists." (those are actual quotes).
Remember when I condemned the term #bropenscience as a sexist epithet? (I used "slur" but epithet is more on target)?
No? https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/1152954211333804032
Remember when I condemned the term #bropenscience as a sexist epithet? (I used "slur" but epithet is more on target)?
No? https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/1152954211333804032
The threads/convos above that embrace the " #bropenscience" tag also include lots of caricaturing of the discussions (you can see those discussions yourselves, I linked them above).
The critics are falsely accused of calling the posted paper "fucking stupid."
Dear @improvingpsych: You banished @OmnesResNetwork for referring, ON TWITTER, to some of what went at SIPS as "Fucking Retards."
Are you going to permit some sorts of vile insults but not others? Calling people "fucking retards"? That's beyond the pale.
Falsely accusing people of using such epithets? We're all good?
Falsely accusing people of using such epithets? We're all good?
In my threads exposing proponents of the term #bropenscience as essentially SJ bigots, I could repeated pushback. Its just humor! "Bro" does not refer only to men. Its not even an insult!
Read the threads above. Accusations of " #bropenscience"!! are routinely followed by condemations of ... wait for it...ready? Men. Judge for yourselves whether: "its just a joke; its not an insult; is not about men") is
#gaslighting.
#gaslighting.
Worse? What is the worst thing an academic can be accused of? "Ism!"
Why risk this sort of garbage? Its not worth it.
Why risk this sort of garbage? Its not worth it.
And this sort of SJ intolerance has already proven effective.
A person pushing back (good guy&scientist, tho I have butted heads w/him too) has deleted his own tweets pushing back. Why?
Class, this is a quiz:
What is the worst thing you can be accused of in academia?
A person pushing back (good guy&scientist, tho I have butted heads w/him too) has deleted his own tweets pushing back. Why?
Class, this is a quiz:
What is the worst thing you can be accused of in academia?
You heard it here first (well, if not first, at least loudly).
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion COULD actually mean something worthwhile, but often it is Orwell-esque gobbledygook meaning "exclusion of all but the sufficiently woke." https://quillette.com/2019/02/24/my-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-statement/
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion COULD actually mean something worthwhile, but often it is Orwell-esque gobbledygook meaning "exclusion of all but the sufficiently woke." https://quillette.com/2019/02/24/my-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-statement/
And if you think that is too harsh an indictment, consider Obama's take on "woke" culture.
On this? I am totally with Obama. https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/1189716260365488128
On this? I am totally with Obama. https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/1189716260365488128
Embrace of epithets like #bropenscience and rhetoric that is gratuitously divisive**?
It needs to stop.
**Conflict is sometimes necessary. Its gratuitous when its unjustified -- none of the critiques of the target article that I saw were at all incivil.
END.
It needs to stop.
**Conflict is sometimes necessary. Its gratuitous when its unjustified -- none of the critiques of the target article that I saw were at all incivil.
END.
