Everything is simple to say. "The moon is made of bagels." Simple. Not true, though. We disagree about the similarity.https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/1124459740921249792 …
-
-
Replying to @PsychRabble @C_Kavanagh and
How far can "concept creep" be stretched? Yes, that is where we are differing.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @NeilKenny0 @C_Kavanagh and
You mean like "words are violence"? Or "white silence is violence"? I have conceded that aborting defective fetuses is only eugenics-adjacent, not quite pure eugenics. I am pretty sure there is way less concept creep here than there. Way super gigantically massively less.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @PsychRabble @NeilKenny0 and
I don't think the existence of absurd concept creep on the SJW left is a reason for its critics to adopt the same tactics.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @NeilKenny0 and
Lee Jussim Retweeted Lee Jussim
Completely fair. Note that I did back off a bit there. However, I also had a hidden agenda, revealed here:https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/1124469793124491264 …
Lee Jussim added,
Lee Jussim @PsychRabbleReplying to @NeilKenny0 @C_Kavanagh and 8 othersWell done. That was a litmus test, being that IDK you. Its like, how could it be otherwise, logically (so, my implicit q was: "Are you a radical SJ nutcase or just someone who disagrees w/me reasonably and rationally?"). Definitely the latter. Welcome.1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @PsychRabble @NeilKenny0 and
Point taken! Re Noah Carl, I'm trying to look into this (while ostensibly on vacation in Munich, lol). I don't think "guilt by association" is *always* invalid -- e.g. if someone contributes to a Holocaust denial journal, it's a fair thing to hold against them, IMO.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @PsychRabble and
I'm not saying that any of Carl's associations are on that level, btw. Just speaking to the general principle.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @PsychRabble and
The Open Psych thing looks kinda dodgy to me in that it looks like Noah Carl & Emil Kierkegaard were peer-reviewing each other's papers a lot. But I'm sure you're right there's a lot of dodgy stuff in psych in general.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @NeilKenny0 and
The issue there, to me, is more this: Did Carl present the OpenPsych stuff AS peer reviewed? Then that would be deceptive and cross my ethical lines. But if not? We academics pub stuff in nonpeer reviewed outlets all the time.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @PsychRabble @NeilKenny0 and
That's a good question. I think the journal describes itself as having "open peer review"?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @PsychRabble and
Open peer-review is not unique to OpenPsych. Various replies to criticisms of the journals are found in our editorial:https://www.openpsych.net/paper/57
9:59 PM - 3 May 2019
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
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.