I think @st_rev said that if you take it seriously, you conclude that everyone is uniquely and fractally embedded in >
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @sarahdoingthing
> innumerable forms of oppression—innumerable because the identities of the forms are nebulous. Every moment is somewhat >
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @sarahdoingthing
> unique, every interaction—although there are patterns, of which the canonical axes of oppression are crude summaries—
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @sarahdoingthing
maybe just reflecting my prior but in this I see "humanities on the cusp of discovering overfitting"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @sarahdoingthing
Well… it probably depends on what you are trying to accomplish… some generalizations hold statistically,
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @sarahdoingthing
but if you are trying to understand what’s happening in a particular case, that might not help
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @sarahdoingthing
semi-hot take: maybe try to keep 'science' on general cases, and pass subjective + idiosyncratic to artists?
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
sounds right. I guess @sarahdoingthing ’s original question = whether science is possible here
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @sarahdoingthing
I think when some objectivity is allowed it's feasible. Eg, causal-oriented studies on discrim. in econ lit
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.