Studying those who succeed in spite of broken childhoods might be more illuminating than studying those who don’t succeed because of them.
-
-
Yeah, this reply totally doesn't make people think you're averse to correction or differing outlooks. Where would anyone get that idea?

-
People tweeting their differing opinions is only fruitful if they’re not misinterpreting the point of the subject. But, thanks for the unnecessary and snarky response.
-
I think he's gonna be okay. You can probably stop replying to every even semi opposing response to him. He has the full capability to do that himself.
-
I was responding to those who replied to me, but thanks anyways.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Hopefully sifting the responses for honest, well-meaning feedback, or to figure out *why* you were misinterpreted also comes with the territory.
-
The tweet doesn’t require further interpretation, only the enhancement of other people’s reading comprehension. When you read the tweet, it’s plain and simple- people added their own assumptions, so why is it his job to clarify the obvious?!
-
I think this assumption is at the heart of every communication misunderstanding. "But *I* couldn't have possibly been any clearer!"
-
Study the winners, not the losers.
-
But that’s just it, he never stated that we should ignore those who have succumbed to their environment. I understood his message to mean that we should bring more attention to those who overcame.
-
He didn't talk about publicity. He talked about study. That implies he's critiquing an entire field for the balance of its research portfolio.
-
We basically only focus on those who overcame in the media. No one is being like, look at Harvey born in a small town to a coal worker and now he bags groceries at Walmart. We think being pulled up by bootstraps are for everyone cause it's all that is in the media.
-
Indeed, making a declaration about an entire field's research portfolio stirs up a lot of context, & part of the context is the field constantly battling people's innate bias towards hearing survivorship stories.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Am I...? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to whitesplain or soft-sciensplain anything...https://twitter.com/Mandford/status/950432416941961216 …
-
If he had said that we should ONLY examine one side, which he did not. Also, he stated, “ MIGHT be more illuminating.” Might, as in “maybe or perhaps,” which isn’t definitive.
-
There are implications here, though, no...? That folks aren't studying the first group? And/or: That one group might be more worthy of study...? That bit is what hangs me up: The
@neiltyson I know would advocate more questions, not fewer...#SciCommpic.twitter.com/0x7gqXac4W
-
It took you eleven days to come up with that response? Move on.2018
-
Nah, it was the same day. Agreed: Happy New Year, sir!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Write your tweets better then Neil.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes, scientific method says that any open criticism is just misinterpretation
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.