I find the "conscious uncoupling" that happens every time I criticise something in the specific brand of open science my field does, neuro/psych (although mostly psych, I guess), really interesting.
Hey — I guess not everybody wants to be bubble-free and engage in dialogue. 
-
-
I really struggle w/ understanding the 'crickets'. Especially, from ppl from whom I expect better. It is painful / frustrating. Perhaps you are right. I know e.g. I am muted by people who mistake my views as anti-open science.
-
Iris, I feel you. "Mistake" is an interesting work to use here. I do not know if I agree exactly with the pragmatics of it here, as I understand it.
-
I think that, on the balance of evidence, the whole "Manichaeistic (e.g., “I’m for open science, you’re not”)" rhetoric — to quote
@seb_bobadilla's blog http://bradlove.org/blog/open-review-2 … — is an adaptive (no idea if purposeful, likely not) strategy that certain people develop. -
This us VS them tactic is super oldschool BTW. Nothing new to see. As I said here I think it's a classic thing they do but in their own special way.https://twitter.com/o_guest/status/1084013681615269888 …
-
I see it as an Inquisition technique to create suspicion around someone. Unfortunately, these tactics have always proved to be very effective :(
-
I agree with you. I don't really mind on one level and on another I think it's pretty serious for science. Ultimately, I have no solution but to speak out and my mind.
-
Yes, I think we should all try and speak out our thoughts about this, as individuals and as members of the different communities.
-
Most of all, I would like to see more ERCs engage and speak out, however, I respect all their voices in private too. I cannot demand nor expect them to speak out in the current climate. I totally understand why they choose not to/cannot do it.
- 1 more reply
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.