As this is relevant imo for the inclusivity & diversity discussion, cc-ing @o_guest @dingding_peng @mcxfrank @patrickshafto on this.
-
-
Replying to @IrisVanRooij @lakens and
Do you mean the general discussion or some spec one that occured at
#SIPS2017? Just asking cos I keep getting tagged in the latter and there3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Was just curious if society saw theoretical/comp tools as falling under 'umbrella' of 'improving psych science'. Wasn't at
#SIPS2017 myself.3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @IrisVanRooij @o_guest and
Again, this 200 different people, getting together, doing stuff. There is no 'society that sees'. If you want this, come, and do it.
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @lakens @IrisVanRooij and
That's right. The conference is very much bottom up. It bet it would be easy to get a group together on this topic and start hacking.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @RolfZwaan @lakens and
Computational modellers are easy to get together? Since when!?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Maybe the level of cooperativeness among computational modellers would be an obstacle then but not the format of the conference.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RolfZwaan @lakens and
It's not so much cooperation that is lacking but the baseline numbers.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @o_guest @RolfZwaan and
How many people would you need to do useful things? You can coordinate in advance - can see it is risky to just show up.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
More than 2 would be nice.
-
-
My guess is that 3-5 would be a good start.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RolfZwaan @lakens and
More than I've ever seen in the same room.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.