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 …
-
-
Replying to @o_guest
I honestly felt that the whole thing was a prelude to her next book on bullying.
1 reply 3 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @zerdeve
You cannot deny — TED talk, this article, etc. — she is a very good player.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest
Well perhaps this whole thing is actually helping her find a more suitable career than science. Giving talks, writing pop sci books, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zerdeve
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zerdeve
I just mean given the article's thesis (as I propose it to be) none them were ever doing science.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest
Yeah I have met people who thought building cool narratives was the purpose of research. Some are genuinely fascinated by that possibility!
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.