Just received this about the @verybadwizards podcast:
"They go at you pretty hard as a person. Not that I think you care, but I think you have kids? You might not want to listen to that one with your kids around. It’s the whole first segment of their most recent episode."
Weak.
-
-
To be clear: when I said I think they offered fair criticism, I was referring to the feedback you’ve heard from others about a control group and critiquing existing scholarship.
-
We've explained why a control group doesn't make sense. Those are for when you're claiming one field is bad in two or more comparable fields and the rest are fine. Not for pointing out one specific problem in one field which you couldn't publish elsewhere if you tried coz scopes.
-
In the same way, someone addressing fraudulent claims about the harmfulness of fat couldn't send those same papers to a identity studies journal.They'd desk reject saying they did identity studies. Fields we covered ranged from geography to social work but did need identity focus
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I understand what you mean, but in fairness, they don’t know you. They don’t *know* that you mean well. They gave their opinion, and yes, they’re biased, but it’s entirely possible that they did not spend much time reading your Areo piece or your tweets about the project.
-
So they shouldn't have said we were badly motivated. I honestly don't care much coz they don't know us and had done zero research so no-one who has read our stuff will take them seriously. You know us tho so I hope you didn't really mean that their assessment of us was fair.
-
No, as I explained, I was referring to the fact that they brought up some fair points about a control group, etc. I did not mean to imply in any way that I thought their criticism of you, James, and Peter as people were fair.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.