We expected this and we don't care much about VBW but it is alarming to see usually reasonable people saying that it's fair to respond with motivational attacks. We didn't do that.If we had, there would have been some kind of justice but we said those scholars intentions are good
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @Trevor_Haynes and
It is really important to distinguish between ideas and people.
2 replies 2 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ConceptualJames and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Trevor_Haynes @HPluckrose and
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 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ConceptualJames @Trevor_Haynes and
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 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @partking7 @ConceptualJames and
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."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @partking7 @ConceptualJames and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @partking7 @ConceptualJames and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @partking7 and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ConceptualJames and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
You are missing the point. Our motivations are irrelevant to what the results show. They're not irrelevant to who we are and the ethical principles we are arguing for. This really shouldn't be difficult to understand.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @partking7 and
I appreciate your feedback but I think we will continue arguing for what we think is important, defending our motivations if necessary and pointing out that they don't impact on the results anyway in precisely the way we think best.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ConceptualJames and
Of course; that's all we all ever do. Still, VBW has a point that you might not be effecting the change you claim to want. They are the sort of folk you'd like to impact (admit it or not). You're failing to do so; they're telling you (indirectly) how to succeed. If u want it.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.