1/ Elaborating on this from a diff direction, I think the *worst* mistakes social scientists make when communicating to the public — at least for me — occurs when provocative interlopers (i.e., edgelords) intrude in a way that is simultaneously arrogant, dismissive, and ignorant.https://twitter.com/generativist/status/1123629764483248129 …
-
Show this thread
-
2/ Which *of course* because if you put someone on tilt their response is going to be ill-considered and reactive. Anger collapses uncertainty into empirically and rhetorically falsifiable absolutism. That's the whole point of trolling — gotcha games.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
💥 (wannabe) Ƀreaker of (the Bad) Loops 💫 Retweeted
3/ But, the effect *does* spill over when it becomes deeply integrated by chronic attacks. When scholarly attention gets turned too much towards resisting bad-faith invaders, you risk bad internal hygiene. https://twitter.com/Aelkus/status/1123612218292101120 …
💥 (wannabe) Ƀreaker of (the Bad) Loops 💫 added,
This Tweet is unavailable.1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
4/ Again, that's part of the whole point of the attack: induced invalidation. But, it still baffles me that people who fancy themselves objective look at the game and think: "that troll defends science!"
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread
5/ "But, scientists should have thick skins!" Really? Why the fuck would you think that? Even if your goal is to maximize "objectivity" — however you characterize it — being a dick isn't a great prescription because... ...affective cognition is a very real thing.
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.