It seems to me that this whole article's thesis is: Social Psychology was — and maybe still is not yet? — a science. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/magazine/when-the-revolution-came-for-amy-cuddy.html …
Maybe — and this is the rub — but maybe, she never found science in the first place in social psy? At least that's what this article claims.
-
-
How do you mean? She was drawn to social psych bec of her perceived lack of scientific rigor? Bec she was in it to come up with cool stuff?
-
I just mean given the article's thesis (as I propose it to be) none them were ever doing science.
-
Yeah I have met people who thought building cool narratives was the purpose of research. Some are genuinely fascinated by that possibility!
-
Don't get me wrong narratives are cool and useful for
#scicomm — but science itself is cool too. -
No disagreement there.
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.
