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.
-
-
Besides - why is it unfair to question motivation? i think lots of us know your motivations were good, and they’re not criticizing in bad faith. Just think it would be cool for you guys to engage in conversation over it all.
-
One cannot prove their motivations, and motivations have nothing to do with the information gained or what it tells us. That is, it's something to talk about that isn't substance but can lead people to discredit the work.
-
1/ From a fan of your hoax, and your work in general: Don't defend a hoax (by definition a bad faith work intended to test a journal's capability of identifying bad faith work) as good faith work because your motivations are good faith, while claiming motivations are irrelevant.
-
2/ It puts you too squarely in parallel with those you criticize, from whom you don't like criticism. Instead, stoically write one more paper, using sound research, argumentation, and writing. A good faith work about "the information gained or what it tells us."
-
3/ Address counters and disputes scientifically (not tweeting about "canards" and "lies.") Get it published (or rejected) by psych, education, soc, other journal. Cross-pub on Areo. Show everyone the value of methods you prefer. Don't stoop to the methods of those you dispute.
-
I don't understand where you think we are. I can see there could be some confusion if we say we did the project in good faith because people say that the fact that the papers weren't sincere shows it to be in bad faith but this is just to confuse two levels.
-
Were we sincere when we wrote the papers & genuinely believe men should be trained like dogs? No. Bad faith, then? OK. Are we sincere in saying the reasons we did this was because we care about knowledge production & consistent ethics? Yes. Bad faith? No.
-
Yes, you did a hoax with good intent. I agree. But it's steeped in falsified data, deceit, youtube yuks, etc. James says "Our motivations are irrelevant." Now show them to be so. Don't double down with a feeling of righteousness; refine your good message for 1 more audience.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
But they didn’t just criticize motivation. They asked if there were better ways to call out the problems with grievance studies, if there could have been proper controls done etc. maybe you really don’t care, but as a listener this seems like an opportunity for good faith debate
-
Those questions can be answered, yes and I intend to soon. I'd like anyone to show me what an appropriate control would look like and what it would control for. This criticism usually involves not understanding the purpose of the project. Also, we have been criticising the field.
-
Don't care much about VBW but am going to write a thing generally about the problem with mindreading motivations rather than addressing arguments. I'm glad it was not that bit you regarded as fair tho.
- 1 more reply
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.