Is there a way to pro-actively alert people to the highly limited scope of such initiatives. It would save the rest of us -- not covered by them -- the time & energy to explain again and again that our work is not pseudoscience because it does not fit some new OS template?
-
-
I think some don’t follow how often we get “ofc you must prereg” or “prereg is for all exploratory research” comments, whenever we talk abt modeling work that doesn’t fit their mold. Insisting that it’s us who misunderstand the intentions of prereg folks is kinda gaslighting.
-
There are prob misunderstandings and overgeneralizations on all sides. I’m glad at least some understanding has been reached among some folks even though the bad faith arguments still exist. e.g., what Danielle discusses here: https://twitter.com/djnavarro/status/1064481703974957057?s=21 …
This Tweet is unavailable. -
Reposting an invitation to people in this (sprawling) conversation!https://twitter.com/melissaekline/status/1064555044966678529 …
-
I might attend; not sure yet.
-
Ah the irony I see two replies to
@melissaekline's tweet above and yet can only view one. Even in this thread somebody seems to be replying who has me blocked, I guess? -
I cannot see the second comment either but sometimes that happens for different reasons than being blocked I think? (e.g., if someone deleted a message)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yep, I took this as your meaning. I don't think anyone could accuse you of not caring about the science :)
-
You never know!
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.

