A little mini-thread about the grievance studies hoax, responding to concerns from @ConceptualJames that the emphasis of my initial set of responses may have been in someway misplacedhttps://twitter.com/briandavidearp/status/1056611677251272706 …
-
-
It wasn't meant to "show something new," and we never insisted it was. Hell, man, this was pointed out repeatedly at book length in the 1990s. The problem is that no one is paying it the attention it deserves. We sought to fix that.
-
I agree that your project brought a lot of attention to some of the problems that exist in some fields. I am doubtful that you convinced many who didn't already agree with you, however, so while a lot of heat has been generated, I don't know if much light has
-
From the private communications I've been receiving, it's likely to be a setup for a backdraft. Something will come along eventually now, I suspect, break a window, flood the space with oxygen, and the whole thing will blow the eff up.
-
Okay but again I'm concerned about your approach to representativeness, base rates, and so on. Presumably, the private communication *you* are getting is not representative of the private communication *being sent* about your hoax
-
Time will tell. :)
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.