Indeed, talking even at a fast pace, and even expressing (apparently or not) conflictive or contradictory ideas is a way to remind the need for discussion, most often relevant references come out. Of course twitter discourse has its rhythm and semantics
-
-
Replying to @dan_marinazzo @KordingLab and
I'm not convinced the problem is just seeking a fast fix or making mistakes at all. The problem to me is that powerful (relatively always!) people seem to make strong pronouncements (without issuing visible corrections).
1 reply 2 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @dan_marinazzo and
Importantly, some of their pronouncements are contradictions at deeper analysis. And Twitter as a medium compounds half-baked views both from the audience and from the main "players" so to speak.
1 reply 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @dan_marinazzo and
A really good example that springs to mind is the case Brad is alluding to where last year (ish?) neuro Twitter went positively bonkers over an article saying "we need to think about behaviour not just neurons".
1 reply 2 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @dan_marinazzo and
Nothing wrong the article of course. But it's ahistorical to react like that as it implies it's a view never expressed previously or continuously and persistently by MANY.
2 replies 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @dan_marinazzo and
If the twitterverse comes up with useful insights without crediting the first person having that insight, is that so bad? I think of twitter more like face to face conversation and I most certainly do not always cite my sources in f2f.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KordingLab @dan_marinazzo and
No, but face-to-face doesn't have an audience of thousands. So when you speak face-to-face you have the pragmatics of you and the few people you're chatting with to deal with. On Twitter, 2k+ people will see, e.g., my tweets and have varying degrees on context collapse.
2 replies 2 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @KordingLab and
The issue is, like I said, that on Twitter we (and let's face it mostly you and other big names, not really me) can shape thousands of people's impressions of the field and yes, even who and what people cite!
1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @KordingLab and
If people doing PhDs see that neuro twitter went bonkers over "let's consider behaviour" they will — and I have seen it offline — genuinely state that it's a new perspective.
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @KordingLab and
But at least in this case you have an immediate discussion, albeit a chaotic one. I am more worried about people thinking that something is big and new because it is in journal X
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I don't see your worry as separate from what I outlined at all.
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.