Hey @improvingpsych , do we have a membership gender breakdown? CR article could only find @siminevazire , other than that the reformers are apparently all dudes *eyeroll*https://twitter.com/ChronicleReview/status/1039624940583051265 …
-
-
Take the second screenshot as an example. Literally *everyone* explained why they came to SIPS. Generally these were positive/constructive motivations, sometimes also with regret or frustration. In the context of the article this doesn't become clear.
-
So it's cherry-picked? Just the bad eggs, etc.?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I wondered that, too. Given some basic inaccuracies (e.g., it wasn’t the 4th SIPS meeting), I don’t think accuracy was the #1 goal here.
-
To answer the q posed ("All of which sounds serious, scholarly, and completely harmless. So what’s with the talk of burning things to the ground?"): My guess is hyperbole or a joke, not to be misunderstood or misrepresented by taking it out of its completely harmless context.
-
I wonder what the motive was to be so inaccurate. It's a really bad articles on so many fronts — some ahistoric stuff about the field generally too.
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.