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".
-
-
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 -
Replying to @dan_marinazzo @o_guest and
Tbh, I don't care much about new or immediate, Daniele, I rather have a slow, organised, well-informed and civilised discussion.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Some nice food and drinks and slow talks, nothing beats that. But it's not gonna happen on twitter, do we agree on this?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @dan_marinazzo @twitemp1 and
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ Retweeted Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ
I already told you what I think... There's a double dissociation between a quick reaction and thinking before you type. I can reply quickly to you on something I have thought deeply about. Besides, I see this stuff in published journal articles too!https://twitter.com/o_guest/status/1096810361246924802 …
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ added,
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ @o_guestReplying to @o_guest @dan_marinazzo and 4 othersAbout "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 0 retweets 1 like
I don't know why but I can genuinely avoid circle-jerking [for lack of a better expression] on Twitter while still reacting and replying quickly. Maybe I'm magical or post-human. 
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.