Not really sure what you're suggesting here, nor do I understand the relevance of bringing up the actions of an employee in this case.
Can you explain?
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
Not really sure what you're suggesting here, nor do I understand the relevance of bringing up the actions of an employee in this case.
Can you explain?
Careful with that now.
I mentioned it because they should spend time investigating that matter, that is still outstanding weeks later and is far more of a threat to students welfare than some who may find applause triggering. I'm not going to go into the reason that person was suspended here - if you use the hashtag elsewhere you can find it out.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-45729031
This was an interesting read. The lady with issues with clapping didn't think it should be banned.
This was an interesting read. The lady with issues with clapping didn't think it should be banned.
Ffs
Aaaaand he disengages.
It's crazy, but they are able to investigate both situations independently of each other.
Have you got in touch or been involved in the case with this Jess Bradley person? Signed a petition, sent an email, made a phone call etc? If so, surely you'd have a better idea of where that investigation is.
It sounds like virtue signalling otherwise.
There are some good points in here.
"She also says it could "breed resentment" if other students start to harbour bad feelings towards autistic people." especially resonates considering some of the mocking responses directed towards the disabled that we've already seen in this thread
People will bitterly argue about anything, won't they?
So they actually voted to not clap, it wasn't forced upon them?
Isn't that the proper way to exercise their rights? So why does anybody else care?
Because privileged right-wing snowflakes absolutely fecking love to whine about their lives being potentially impacted in insignificant ways.
Wait, having an irrational fear for something in particular is being disabled too?
People with mental illnesses can be disabled too. As per the legal definition of disability.
Nevermind, see below.
Last edited:
Autism is a disability, stop acting like a buffoon because I know you aren't one.
Sorry, forgot she had autism, my bad.
Who is they?
I posted a link to the 2015 incident on page 1 of this thread. All they said was "triggering anxiety" Definitely possible the people feeling anxious were on the autistic spectrum.
I blame Pogue for 95% of the heated discussions on the caf.
autism is a spectrum disability that makes people unable to socialise, it is not the narrow disability that a minority of computer engineers have but that is disproportionately represented in media
even assuming that the underreporting of autism in females barely makes a dent in the the ratio 20% of women having it isn't statistically insignificant
Holy shit.
It's a wank 'study' and the speed by which it's been gleefully picked up by some is, well, perhaps more indicative of a problem than what the authors found. The authors, and especially the right wing twitter bods who are gleefully sharing it don't seem to understand how peer review works, but yes, congratulations, wank research done in bad faith can get published. I suspect that's true for all and every field, but we don't know, because they didn't have a control, because it's shitty research done (oh irony of ironies) to prove a political point.
But hey, maybe the social experiment here is the hypocrisy of attempts to 'own the libs' by doing exactly what you're accusing them of doing?
Wasn't their aim to show the amount of shite that get published? Not like they can write good research and prove the point by that if so.
No their aim was a takedown of sub disciplines they don't like using pseudo-academic methods. At least, I kinda hope it was because, if this research is genuinely indicative of how these people conduct research – or think research should be conducted – then well, feck me, it says a lot about them.
I've done a brief check on the authors, none of whom seem to have any publication history or university affiliation, although Helen Pluckrose's academia.edu page is accessible and she publishes in a related field to mine. If the papers listed there weren't crafted for the study then I suspect she just is not a very good researcher.
If you wanted to demonstrate that a load of shite gets published (a problem that is probably genuine in every single academic discipline, especially in the niche journals that they got published in despite their bogus claims that they were all 'leading'), then there are ways to do it that don't make your findings absolutely meaningless.
Again, all this shows to me, really, is that these three don't understand what peer review is.
That definitely seems to be their intention. Specifically that a load of shite gets published, providing it fits in with a prevailing orthodoxy. But yeah, they really missed a trick by not providing any controls. Seems obvious that they should have also tried to get an identical number of misogynist, uber-conservative articles published at the same time. Otherwise they're using bad science to expose bad science.
the authors are calling it an expose of left wing academics not an expose of publishing standards
it's shit by accident not on purpose
https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oct/04/open-access-journals-fake-paper
for interest here is a similar story about a much bigger experiment by John Bohannon who blames predatory journals for bad research being published instead of blaming minor academic studies he's not big on
for interest here is a similar story about a much bigger experiment by John Bohannon who blames predatory journals for bad research being published instead of blaming minor academic studies he's not big on
They’re calling it an expose of left wing academics because they’re getting a load of left-leaning drivel published (peer reviewed by academics)
NSFW but funny and very accurate … apologies if it's already posted somewhere else guys!
Problem with fields of study in general is that there's too many of em imho. People do research into topic so irrelevant it's beyond me anyone is even paying em for it.
So this part: https://mashable.com/2018/06/07/google-salad-emoji/?europe=true
is actually true? That's completely insane
Meanwhile excellent scientists engaged in genuine medical research are having to spend 50% of their time trying to get funding for their projects. It's an unfair world.
… and sadly, not the worst fact mentionedSo this part: https://mashable.com/2018/06/07/google-salad-emoji/?europe=true
is actually true? That's completely insane
They should keep Maslow's pyramid in mind when deciding what to give research grants to.
Fix basic human needs and go from there,
Fix basic human needs and go from there,
these are different things, if your aim is to show how stupid left wing academics are you do an academic review of their stupid ideas
if your aim is to prove that journals accept fraudulent research then yeah, no shit, there are already experiments showing the same thing, this isn't a ground breaking expose
Probably a good job you aren't in charge of funding then.
If we had stopped funding of basic research, based on your ill-informed opinions, we would have an iron lung that was solar powered but we would have no polio vaccine.