Here's just a reminder that if you are a computational cognitive modeller and also part of any minority in the field, join this club full of amazing people: http://compcog.science/ And if you organize conferences / workshops / etc: It's also a good source for possible speakers!
-
-
Replying to @chbergma @BayesForDays
Why does the website say "neuroatypical" as a descriptor? We have a label that isn't othering: "neurodiverse." Writing atypical implies there's a typical neurological template, when there really isn't, and it is extremely othering for neurodiverse folx
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Also, I support the idea of gathering community for increased visibility of minoritized scholars. However, we can't laterally reduce every category of minoritization into one. (Cont.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Intersectionality is really important, and ignoring complex identity to create a uniform "minority' category only serves to erase and make the categories "default/other." So, it would be good to allow ppl to disclose which groups they belong to if they are comfortable doing so.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Thank you, that's super constructive and helpful, I really appreciate this and we (
@o_guest and I) are always eager to improve this list. I like the idea of optional disclosure, but am a bit worried whether it might create odd dynamics and feel compulsory. But why not try...1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I'm neurodiverse/atypical myself. Fixed.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
As for disclosure, I'm not sure what the legal status is of storing people's characteristics (some of which are protected legally in the UK at least) is under GDPR and on and on? And we didn't ask for emails again for that reason, so everything on that site is public already.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Would like to learn more though! One thing that is worrying is that some additions to the list were not done so by the people themselves (we have to assume this true as it's open to anybody adding anybody, we don't have accounts or emails attached).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
If the only solution is to start again, delete the list in a sense and tweet asking for a do-over asking for characteristics and email addresses, maybe it's worth looking into?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I feel like looking into a way to verify that people themselves have added themselves to the list is *crucially important*. Even if it's just a mechanism that is for verification purposes only.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I don't think we'd have got as many names if, e.g., high-ranking women profs had to add themselves (people higher up the food chain seem to have no time for such things, right?). But you're saying it's more important to be self-added? Then we have to start again.
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.