-
-
Replying to @telescopicserie @siminevazire and
Nor is it my style, and I was in that article too. This isn't representative of SIPS, as it is much more diverse in the kinds of people, attitudes, goals, methods, etc. This article gives a partial look at a specific issue.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Research_Tim @siminevazire and
It's a very confusing piece... this we totally agree on.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @siminevazire and
Agreed. I can only imagine how confusing/misleading it can be when reading this with little background knowledge. I really don't want people to get a wrong impression of
@improvingpsych.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Research_Tim @siminevazire and
How did this happen? Did this journalist only go to some of the worst events?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Research_Tim and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @siminevazire @o_guest and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
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.
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.