>calling people names instead of arguing with data
>trying to overturn empirical data with "what if" theoretical models
>thinking this is how science works
I think you need more years in that PhD program, bro. Slow learner, but if you spend 10000 hours on it, you'll make it.
https://twitter.com/itsbirdemic/status/1081697293991059456 …
-
-
-
Replying to @itsbirdemic
>thinking being in a PhD program is impressive >foregoing income in private sector to be someone's slave labor >35k starting >incapable of teaching himself the needed material >30 citations >thinks he's winningpic.twitter.com/pMpHOG9tSA
6 replies 4 retweets 34 likes -
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil
Oh it’s not really that impressive, that’s why it’s laughable you haven’t even done that much
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @itsbirdemic
>not even trying at this pointpic.twitter.com/w3spHVXMEV
8 replies 1 retweet 15 likes -
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil @itsbirdemic
It takes a very special kind of person to show off their paper with 38 citations while knowing that every single one of those was a self-citation.
0 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Yeah, he explained it one tweet above mine.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
There's two simple measures of self citations. One of them is proportion of citations going to self, the other is proportion of citations that are from self. I think the first is problematic (see Robert Sternberg affair) and the latter is not (indicates working in small area).
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.