Short thread on academic methodology and neurodiversity
1. The thing that has always exploded my brain most has been poor methodology, rather, methodology that doesn't acknowledge how it fits with its outcome, & Covid has sent that into overdrive. I've lost days stuck in loops

2. What I mean is - there are disciplines whose methods are tools for achieving outcomes that have been decided upon as desirable. We judge their efficacy by how they produce *that outcome* & how reproducible & how predictable that production is

3. But there is what feels like a systemic tendency in many to be obscurantist about the desired outcome, or at the least about their methodology's side effects

4. Which is where we come to convergent and divergent goals. A convergent goal is one that has a single desired outcome. "Reduce deaths from x" for example. Most goals are presented as convergent

5. The problem with convergent goals is one every 1st grade philosophy student knows - the best way to avoid any more deaths from x is to kill everybody using means y.

6. That is to say, when people say they have a convergent goal, they don't mean it. They're simplifying. Only they're not, because when you ask them what their divergent goal is they can never tell you, only that "it's complicated"

7. And that's fine - life is complicated. The problem comes when we go back to the methodology for achieving that goal. If you cannot define your goal, then no methodology will be much help in achieving it

8. Again, I get it, BUT
- we still live in a world where politicians tell us the goal is convergent
- we still have public-facing scientists telling us they have the best tools for achieving the politicians' goal

9. And for a neurodivergent brain that cares about transparency and precision that is a loop it's impossible to escape from, because both sides are purporting to do something which cannot be done yet employing the narrative of a simple closed system to discuss it

10. And it would sort of remain a 1st grade philosophy issue except for the fact that lives are at stake, and the question is one of which lives and what kind of lives and what quality of lives should be prioritised and how which is real world and important

11. In short it feels as though scientists and politicians alike are confidently having a conversation whose premises make no sense by definition yet everyone is nodding as though they are perfectly logical & that explodes a neurodivergent brain and feels like gaslighting 101

12. and tbh I'm not sure what the answer is other than "the neurotypical academy is screwed" (yeah, we know)
and
"we need a shit ton of REALLY good science AND communication theory education, sustained for decades" (yeah, we know, but not much help now, or hope ever)

13. And whenever anything is questioned on its logic, the answer is "we didn't mean that" with almost a dismissive laugh and an UTTER refusal to explain what they DID mean, & honestly, that's pour whole life and it's exhausting but also too important to ignore

(this thread brought to you courtesy of reading yet another atrocious journal article by an eminent and idolised scientist. Thank you for your forbearance)