”Real quantitative” because math has no opinions sure sure surepic.twitter.com/np6WeWBr6n
-
I guess nobody told him lots of us get money from the National *Science* Foundation, huh?
I look forward to the next ad where they realise they absolutely cannot do good work without the theories, concepts, methods & input of social sciences & humanities. 
-
-
buT tHe NUmBerS
-
Our objective opinions are objective and quantifiable!
Politics is important and needs maths!
Social media is frivolous opinions! Let's study it with REAL SCIENCE, cloak it in stats, publish it, so it becomes *not* frivolous half baked opinions. 
-
Me, an anthropologist: Have you considered that 'objectivity' is a myth and that literally all takes, including the quantitative, are socially positioned? Them: But ... but ... but numbers.
-
Also the social sciences & humanities have been studying social interaction since always. And social media since before it proliferated. So maybe... just maybe... quant methods aren't the real hero here? 
-
Amen. Related: I'm part of a team starting a big project on public understanding of quant stuff and (in)certainty in science: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1906802&HistoricalAwards=false …
-
So interesting!
Also related: I'm constantly having to explain that qual is an expert skill. Everyone in my field thinks they can dabble... yet they're afraid of stats - would never dream of just trying a little quant (
). Many people fear maths but dismiss qual methods. 
-
Qual suffers because of its ostensible accessibility - it’s just talking and then highlighting sentences, right? By contrast even very basic quan can have appearance of complexity!
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.