> having to admit any sort of wrongdoing. Alternative: Say you lost faith in effect but only refer to sampling error.
-
-
Replying to @annemscheel @o_guest
I think it’s definitely more courageous the farther down the hierarchy you go.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @morgantear @o_guest
Yes and no. On the top end you're most responsible and might be held accountable eg. by funders&administration, no?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @annemscheel @morgantear
you think the institution which probably hired her off the back of TED talk and other fame will reevaluate her?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @morgantear
Not making a prediction in this specific case, but in general it's a possibility that concerns high-ranking ppl more.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @annemscheel @morgantear
high ranking ppl have their elitist old boy/girl networks to fall back on, loads of privilege there
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @morgantear
1) I think coming clean about shady methods that also earned your elitist friends their jobs can result in a sig fall >
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
> from grace. 2) I'm not arguing top-end folks are to be pitied or worse off. Just saying relationship b/w rank and >
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
> transparency cost won't be so straightforward in every case.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @annemscheel @morgantear
don't know... Never been a prof at an elite US uni, but seems to have great machiavellian potential if you ask me!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
in all seriousness though this should be about the lit and what we as a sci want to do about it. If nothing then 
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.