So I respectfully disagree. Certainly the more applied the research is, the more authors I expect on a paper. However there are many generalists who are hardworking, ethical researchers who produce valuable work.
-
-
Replying to @cleverclue
💥 (wannabe) Ƀreaker of (the Bad) Loops 💫 Retweeted 💥 (wannabe) Ƀreaker of (the Bad) Loops 💫
I mostly disagree, too. There was a lot of convos in this thread that changed my mind (or, more accurately, framing/question.) In particular,https://twitter.com/generativist/status/1112086829358997504 …
💥 (wannabe) Ƀreaker of (the Bad) Loops 💫 added,
💥 (wannabe) Ƀreaker of (the Bad) Loops 💫 @generativistReplying to @ChicSSBM @kaznatcheevThat's a great point, I need to draw some distinction between physical sciences and social ones — different issues. And yes, they do not :( The first time I read the quote below, I thought it was vapid and wrong. Every year, agree with it more. https://twitter.com/microjudgments/status/1108774821150679041 …1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @generativist @cleverclue
💥 (wannabe) Ƀreaker of (the Bad) Loops 💫 Retweeted 💥 (wannabe) Ƀreaker of (the Bad) Loops 💫
💥 (wannabe) Ƀreaker of (the Bad) Loops 💫 added,
💥 (wannabe) Ƀreaker of (the Bad) Loops 💫 @generativistReplying to @ChicSSBM @kaznatcheevThat's a great point, I need to draw some distinction between physical sciences and social ones — different issues. And yes, they do not :( The first time I read the quote below, I thought it was vapid and wrong. Every year, agree with it more. https://twitter.com/microjudgments/status/1108774821150679041 …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @generativist @cleverclue
💥 (wannabe) Ƀreaker of (the Bad) Loops 💫 Retweeted Phyllis Betts
cc:
@BettsPbetts because my response here is related to your challenge which I'm just noticing here,https://twitter.com/BettsPbetts/status/1111982055909404672 …💥 (wannabe) Ƀreaker of (the Bad) Loops 💫 added,
Phyllis Betts @BettsPbettsReplying to @generativistA *multi*disciplinary team is *one* way to pursue interdisciplinary questions/create interdisciplinary insights, *required* for narrowly trained specialists. Lone scholars *trained* to pursue interdisciplinary topics *may* > than 2+ narrowish specialists. Training is pivotal.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @generativist @cleverclue
I appreciate the real engagement (and the Mills passage.)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @BettsPbetts @cleverclue
Twitter threads are great! (Until they turn into tree structures.)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @generativist @BettsPbetts
You spurred a rich and timely discussion. I'm developing a paper on deference and I've written on arrogance in the past. What mature work looks like is kind of surprising when we study it intently.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cleverclue @BettsPbetts
Oh please cc me when it's out if you can!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @generativist @BettsPbetts
I will! Here's an earlier view in the work where we were working on classifiers & artificial neural networks aka deep learning. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269996941_Fusing_and_filtering_arrogant_classifiers …
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Now that we're developing applications in virtual reality, we're looking to prevent triggering rage in users. Time to talk about when computers appear arrogant or demand too much deference.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Definitely timely!
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.