There is talk in liberal quarters of people—straight white men, mostly—working to preserve their unearned privilege. And it is true that being born into a phenotype that has historically held power constitutes unearned privilege. We all have some, some more than others. However:
-
Show this thread
-
You know who else is preserving their unearned privilege? Grievance Studies scholars.
#SokalSquared revealed the shoddy “scholarship” in these fields, and yet these departments and faculty are flourishing.https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ …8 replies 57 retweets 332 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @HeatherEHeying
They are basically the bad guys in "Atlas Shrugged".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JimBobgraholski @HeatherEHeying
Jim and Heather, you guys should read the original papers and make up your own mind. Here's my analysis of just one. I include a link to all the papers. http://www.thisweekinstupid.com/2018/10/11/profs-perpetrate-hoax-just-not-the-one-you-think/ …
#SokalSquared2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WeekInStupid @HeatherEHeying
Data presented was still malarkey though, they just claim to have learned a better method of what amounts to essentially psychologically unlocking the doors to being accepted without merit. That's bad.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JimBobgraholski @HeatherEHeying
They did succeed in getting falsified data accepted as ethnography. But their conclusions were largely removed from the paper since they were not supported by the data. It became exactly what it was--a single site participant ethnography.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But did you read how their jargon-y drivel was eviscerated by reviewers? Gorgeous.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WeekInStupid @JimBobgraholski
You guys misunderstood my intention: I meant that the perpetrators of Grievance Studies themselves, the wokest academics, are preserving their unearned privilege. Not the authors of the hoax—far from it. My very brief take is included here:https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-the-Grievance/244753 …
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @HeatherEHeying @JimBobgraholski
Yeah. Got that. I think that reading the papers and reviews will change your mind. Very little of what's being said is true. Jargon can't mask faulty scholarship. Unsupported research which conforms to an agenda does not get a pass. All they did was falsify data.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I’ve read most of what they wrote, and the reviews. Was it Hypatia who lauded their work as exemplary scholarship? Back-engineering arguments to fit conclusions is anti-intellectual. Many fields do it; these fields both a) do it constantly and b) promote bigoted conclusions.
-
-
Replying to @HeatherEHeying @JimBobgraholski
The review process fixed nearly everything wrong with the Hooters paper except the underlying deception. How does biology detect completely falsified data?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
In the end, all they could do was fool one editor of a quant journal with fake ethnography. Snore. Check out my analysis above.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.