Another question is whether we should worry about it. I suspect the in-group aspect has marginal effects compared to changing incentives.
-
-
Well, insisting we're not a movement = rhetorical play that has been used in and by other groups to sidestep criticism. I've seen it before.
3 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
See, I think it's exactly the opposite: It actually prevents others from becoming part of it & spreading the virus to all of science (1/3)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I'm not sure how to resolve this with you because I get exactly the opposite from my experience.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
And the reason for your exp is that we continue to insist view OS as a revolutionary cabal instead of infecting everyone with the idea
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Yes, some of us are a clique. One I'm very aware I'm not in. I still taught all my students about
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
open science and specifically open source when I taught them to code. Same with my previous and current lab.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Good, keep it up! I'm not part of a clique either. I never was, nor want to be. (I have some friends in So-called OS but so do you).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I consider myself in open science because I do open science. I don't agree with everything others in the movement do or say though.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I didn't claim you were in a clique. That criticism is the one I've been asked my quite a few others to address within psych's open science.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
And, yes I do have some very cool friends in open science. We're not in an exclusionary clique though.
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.