I'm not sure how to define the scale of it. But #medtwitter should at the very least not amplify him and ideally would push back on him for his overconfident sensationalism.
-
-
Replying to @PrasFrancis @shmoopythescie1 and
That is my point. He probably gets more attention by everyone going crazy over his statements. Which just feeds into his shtick. He is not doing anything that he should be ‘cancelled’ for. He is just annoying sometimes and should be ignored.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @TomOsinski22 @PrasFrancis and
It’s just upsetting he is so often a go-to for journalists and others because this crass overconfidence is not a good look for the profession. I realize the journalists select for that, they don’t like statements with uncertainty or complexity or even humility - itself a sign.
3 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @TomOsinski22 and
I was a speaker at the Trottier Symposium in Montreal in 2010 and participated in a panel discussion on scicomm. I remember of the panelists explaining how the way to succeed as a TV pundit is to express absolute certainty in your views. No nuance, and NEVER admit error.
4 replies 3 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @MarkHoofnagle and
This is a very important point! This behavior is thus fostered by the acedemic community! Future collaborative effort maybe could address this?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TomOsinski22 @gorskon and
It's really not fostered in academia. Academics are the biggest wafflers on earth as most understand complexity. Never admitting you are wrong is TV pundit/politics land and how you sell books. Again it's a SM strategy, I wish more people recognized it as such
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @MarkELindsay @gorskon and
But scicomm is an academic discipline and these tactics were discussed at a symposium.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TomOsinski22 @MarkELindsay and
A national repository of experts in fields? Journalists would never go for it. They always have one of three or four archetypes for scicomm stories. 1. Tech, isn’t it neat? 2. David vs Goliath 3. Science just proved the world isn’t real 4. Turns out, chocolate is good for you!
2 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @TomOsinski22 and
If it isn’t about gadgetry, taking on the system, or reversal then it’s some goddamn regurgitation of a university press release. They love Vinay because he talls@about reversal. It’s catnip.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @TomOsinski22 and
Yup. If there’s a narrative reporters love when it comes to medicine and science, it’s “What if everything we thought we knew about X is actually wrong?” It’s a trope, and a tired one that never fails to irritate me.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes
Of course, experts who willingly and enthusiastically feed that narrative, that trope, are sought-after interviews,
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @MarkHoofnagle and
It is wrong and a system issue. The other issue is people also are just looking to satisfy their viewers interests. Good, detailed challenging of ideas needs to continue. And I think it is good for non-professionals see different sides of an argument be represented.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
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.