It was not constructive indeed but I guess it reflects very well the frustration generated among the community. It also shows that judging other people's work from a position of ignorance is not advisable. We all should understand the latter.
-
-
Although I agree with most of the points made, referring to the degree of poor consideration we have for other fields is a little an ad hominem tu quoque argument which not only deviates the attention from more pressing matters but may result in deepening the disagreement.
-
Déjà vu. We can do better, I think.
-
I don't tell them what to do with their subfield.
-
And I listen to them when they say "this is what works for us". So worst case I ignore them, best case I respect them. No case do I tell them what to do about their subfield. I think this is true for all modellers I have heard so far speaking up.
-
I'll confess that I have criticized research into gender from evolutionary perspective (even in discussion with Ben) based on conceptual grounds. But agree with Esther's point in parallel thread that in present context there are more urgent matters. I believe that we need to seek
-
common ground to achieve positive change in the dialogue. I respect if not everyone wants to always (or at all) invest time in that, and then just respecting what the other does is fine. Absolutely.
-
Sorry, you are correct. I meant to add "in this context" when I said: "I think this is true for all modellers I have heard so far speaking up." But yes, in general, the fact that we might dislike certain fields means nothing to this disagreement.
-
There is a gulf of difference between that kind of disagreement and this one. I tried to touch on that throughout this thread but also specifically here:https://twitter.com/o_guest/status/1065258547699695618 …
- 3 more 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.

Did not know if I should tag you. Thanks for joining 
