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.
-
-
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
I see these ahistorical and disjoint takes happening constantly on Twitter and in light of the fact the main conversants are seasoned and highly respected members of the field it makes me concerned. What is going on?
1 reply 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @dan_marinazzo and
I would describe this phenomenon as an emergent hype machine that powerful people (most likely inadvertently) feed. It does a disservice because out field has a rich history and making out like we are just discovering stuff wrecks the literature.
1 reply 3 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @dan_marinazzo and
It's not a month that goes by that I don't' see papers in prestigious journals that don't cite whole swathes of other bits of the same field. I don't want to name examples, but many come to mind including ones where I personally (and Brad) have called out/attention to on Twitter.
1 reply 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @dan_marinazzo and
About "moving fast and breaking things" though, since it was basically mentioned as a stance... Let's not? Let's try to be a bit more respectful to our field and colleagues? Let's optimise that? The whole point of doing it right
#OpenScience etc., is actually stopping to think.1 reply 3 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @dan_marinazzo and
Agreed. I think we all know that Twitter is not the ideal media for having a relaxed and carefully thought discussion about anything. It promotes coarse statements and disputes, particularly among individuals with, say, too much bile.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
But it is what we have at hand and I fear we are misusing it. Perhaps we should try to minimise using it as a competition scenario and fruitless winning/loose dynamics.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
This is part of a larger problem in which we are actually incentivized to ignore other fields when writing. The potential cost of this is minimal (get called out in review, and fix it), but the benefit of ignoring other fields is huge (one usually gets away with claiming novelty)
3 replies 2 retweets 7 likes
Nasty system. And yes, within our field, not just between fields, it's very pronounced too. So many papers just ignore sub-areas of psych or historical areas which already tried X approach.
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @bradpwyble and
I agree with a lot of these comments, but part of me feels a sociologist could probably chip in pointing out clear historical precedent for the discussion we're now having. It's a delicate balance, wanting honest exchange while being mindful of potentially large audience.
0 replies 1 retweet 5 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.