Conversation

Replying to and
Almost always when academics study things that can go wrong, those are things that mainly go wrong to other people, not especially us. Should we stop studying such things, because we are not the folks at max risk?
1
5
Replying to and
This is not generally true. Such risks are not attendant on say questions of studying supernovas or comparing battery material performance. Where this is true, steps can be taken in proportion to the moral hazard. See my thread linked several tweets above where I was tagged in
2
1
Replying to and
Okay, I've read your thread, and I seriously disagree with the claim that you should not talk about a topic unless you are in the group most at risk. I agree one should be more careful the more is at stake, but practically it is criticism keeps error in line, not care plans.
2
4
Replying to and
I do not make that claim. I point out that this is the logical transposition of Perrow's conclusions from Normal Accidents theory and point out that I don't go that far. I simply say: either add care, or add more direct risk.
3
7
Replying to and
That's *one* example of how you could add risk commensurate to the potential fallouts of your thinking here. There might be many other ways. For example: just do this as a paper, not on blog+twitter. Or run it by a female economist colleague first.
2
Replying to and
What I've found irksome about your response to blowback is that you give yourself entire benefit of the doubt: you seem to suggest critics are all irrational SJW activists and your intellectual approach is above reproach. If you believe that, there is no debate here
2
1
Replying to and
Can't speak for you. I'd do this kind of topic as a serious academic study resulting in a peer-reviewed paper, or not at all. I'd restrict preliminary loose spitballing to trusted personal colleagues. I wouldn't go public till I was way more certain of my conclusions.
1
1
Replying to and
The world is full of people taking about sex harassment with a lot less care than I'm taking. That includes most of the people who've responded to me on twitter in the last day. Why aren't you complaining to them first?
1
2
Replying to and
Because, Robin, you're actually (and deservedly) taken seriously and respected by many people who matter and might act on things you say. I also generally respect your thinking and find good ideas in it even if I don't always agree with you. 🙂 I see no upside in engaging randos
Replying to and
We have both weak & strong clues, & weak & strong methods of analysis, & a whole continuum between. People who refuse to talk unless they can say the strongest possible thing usually don't say anything, allowing others to dominate the stage.
8